Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As amendments Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 1, amendments Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

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

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.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated earlier we are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive. Deputy O'Dea and Deputy Ó Snodaigh have tabled amendments and I have also requested Deputy Naughten and Deputy Colreavy to speak. If the question on amendment No. 1 is agreed to, then amendments Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, cannot be moved.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the principle behind the amendments. We discussed these issues on Committee Stage. An Post should continue to be enshrined in the Act as the named service provider for a number of reasons, including fraud. As I noted on Committee Stage, I suspect that if an analysis were done of fraud, it would show there is much less fraud associated with the sub-post office network than the other payment mechanisms the Department has introduced. Perhaps the Minister has figures that will confirm my view.

Last year, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated that control measures had achieved savings of €632 million through the identification of fraud, client error, departmental error and refunds from estates. This is a significant sum, especially as people must dig deep to fund the social welfare system through the universal social charge, property tax, income tax, increased VAT rates and, from next year onwards, water charges. This is how the system is bankrolled.

On the one hand, we have in place an extensive national network of sub-post offices while, on the other, An Post continues to squeeze local post offices. A case in point is the post office in Cappataggle in my constituency where, at a large meeting last Monday night, the local community expressed serious anger about the potential loss of its post office, particularly as a family member of the previous postmistress is willing to take over the business.

One cannot look at the sub-post office network in isolation. In many communities, it is maintaining the community as a whole. It is maintaining some other business, whether it be a shop or a petrol pump. In many cases, it is the only premises left in the village as everything else has closed.

The Minister will come back and provide reassurance stating that, as part of the contract, there is a condition that the service provider must be able to provide a service to 95% of the population within a 15 km radius. As I pointed out to her, that would involve a 19 mile round trip which would be significant for many, particularly the elderly in isolated rural areas. It could be a much greater distance if the local sub-post office closed, with residents having to travel multiples of that distance. In that context, it is important to remember we are talking about a country where one third of pensioners live on their own, many of them in isolated rural situations. Many of them have little contact with any form of civilisation from one end of the week to the other, except for the local postmistress whom they visit in the post office to collect their pension.

The Minister is trying to provide us with reassurance about 95% coverage. After the committee meeting, I thought that sounded familiar. It was bugging me all week. Then I realised it is the same story that is trotted out in relation to broadband, that 95% of the population is covered by broadband. The difficulty is that one has better broadband coverage on the moon than one has in some parts of Ireland. Is the Minister saying that such is the type of service she wants in place for the collection of social welfare payments through the post office network? I would remind her that a large number of these payments - probably the biggest cash payment made - are social assistance payments. These are payments that are made to those who cannot make ends meet from one end of the week to the other without this basic payment from the Department of Social Protection and who have to eat into that basic payment to pay for the taxi to go to collect their money.

The Minister's party colleague, Deputy Brendan Ryan, put forward an alternative on Committee Stage and she dismissed it on the basis that An Post is written into the statutory instrument. The Minister might think that some members of the Government parties will swallow that hook, line and sinker, but she will not pull the wool over our eyes on this side of the House. As she knows well, a statutory instrument can be changed at the stroke of a pen, laid before the House and become law overnight. An Post can be taken out of the statutory instrument at the whim of the Minister or a future Minister at some future date. I presume Deputy Burton will not be in this Department too much longer and while I have a lot of time for her and respect her, I would not necessarily trust some of the other suspects who might end up in this Department after her.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take that to the hustings.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can take that to the hustings, if she wishes. Whether an endorsement from me will be of assistance or not is another matter.

I made the point on Committee Stage that An Post staff, particularly the postmasters and postmistresses throughout the country, can play a far more valuable role because they have signed the Official Secrets Act 1963 while many of the other service providers, those that are being considered by the Minister, have not. From a social point of view, I would have concerns in that regard. First, as I stated, if one knows the rate of social assistance payment that someone is getting, one knows the total household income. One can tell a lot from a person's payment. Also, there is a role that those staff can play in sub-post offices in assisting the public in submitting applications online which would make the processing of those applications far more efficient for the Department. The Department's Secretary General, and every other Secretary General within Government, would be delighted if every application they received were submitted online because it would streamline the process. The difficulty is it involves closing the door to those who do not have access to electronic communication, who are not able to use computers and who are not IT literate. An Post and the sub-post office network could fill that void. One example I came across during the week relates to four individuals, from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency and my constituency, who have had their beef genomics scheme application refused on the basis that they could not provide evidence that the application was received by the Department. Why not have An Post, through the sub-post office network, working to provide that service to the public in order that such applications could be submitted electronically?

The Minister also makes the argument that she cannot force social welfare recipients to collect their payments at a sub-post office because they have built up an entitlement and there is flexibility of movement throughout the European Union. She is perfectly correct in relation to benefit payments where recipients have made a contribution or there is an automatic entitlement, and one cannot take that away from them. However, social assistance payments are completely different. Social assistance payments are based on one's address and one's means. There is no reason social assistance payments, particularly unemployment assistance or, as it is now called, jobseeker's allowance, should not be paid through post offices. There are many other payments that could be made that way that would address the issues of client error and fraud and would identify some of the issues of departmental error. I believe that the benefit to the Department would far outweigh the potential cost savings that are being thought about within the Department by squeezing An Post by bringing in another service provider.

Those aspects could be tied in to a social provision that would be allowed within EU competition rules. If some other service provider can provide the same level of service in this jurisdiction, so be it. I very much doubt it. We should look to see how we can sweat the existing assets to greatly improve efficiency and error detection within the Department and make far greater savings than the couple of pence that can be saved by closing the local sub-post office and forcing the elderly into taxis to travel 20, 21 or 22 miles to pick up their old age pension.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin with an apology because when I finish here, I must return to a committee meeting. Apologies to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Minister.

If this Parliament were a board of directors of an entity called Ireland Inc., we would probably examine the Bill under a number of headings. We would try to ensure we had the right mix and type of services, allowances and pensions. Obviously, we would look at the cost of providing those services. We would look at how streamlined and accessible the services are for those who need them. We would look to ensure the system was robust and trustworthy. We would look to see whether this system had a track record of meeting people's needs.

In addition, we will be examining whether taxpayers' interests are protected in the process.

Post offices and sub-post offices should be viewed as an extremely valuable and trusted network of public service outlets. In that respect, they are more than just post offices and can be easily accessed by all citizens. Most importantly, although it is not always taken into account, the post office has a hard-won reputation and brand that is highly regarded and respected. Yet that network will be at grave risk if the number of customers doing business in such outlets falls. The footfall will determine the network's sustainability and viability.

A recent Grant Thornton report on the future of the post office network found that if the social welfare contract was lost, over 550 post office closures could be expected. Even if the social welfare contract is kept at a reduced rate, well over 400 post offices would be at risk of closure. That is a stark figure, but we have a choice. We can do something to ensure that this trusted brand of accessible services can be sustained, or we can take an alternative decision which will damage the existing network beyond repair.

There is a difference between pension or other social welfare transactions and buying bread, milk or petrol. The difference with post offices is that there is continuity of communications and a trust has been built up. The continuity of staffing is also a factor. The elderly, in particular, like to get to know the people they are dealing with over the counter and it takes years to build up that trust. Thankfully, we do not have a high turnover of staff in post offices or sub-post offices. The same cannot be said for other possible outlets. The quality of communications, confidentiality, trust and the sensitivity associated with pensions and allowances all need to be taken into account.

Post offices have never let people down but the banks have. We should not even consider awarding social welfare contracts to any network other than post offices. Why change something that works and has been working so well for so long?

As a member of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, I was part of a group that drafted a report on the future of our post office network. That report made a number of recommendations as to how the network could remain viable. Given the social benefit of personal contact that exists between post office staff and their customers, the committee recommended that other Government services should also be made available through that network.

One must consider the isolation that exists in society today, even in inner city Dublin not to mention rural areas. It is particularly the case for older people living in rural areas, however. It therefore seems appropriate that Government services should be moved to a facility with which people are comfortable and in which they have confidence. These payments could include motor-tax renewals, hospital charges, business rates, rents and any other Government services. It is one thing to talk about putting new services into post offices but if we, as a board of directors of Ireland Inc., make a decision that will have the unintended - but very clear - consequence of removing social welfare payments from post offices, we may as well say that we will shut down the network.

A number of amendments have been tabled to the Bill by my party colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, and others. They have highlighted the need for this social welfare contract to be maintained by An Post. I would passionately argue that those amendments should be taken on board due to their importance. It does not just concern the quality of services to the public, but also the existing trusted infrastructure involved.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not so long since we last discussed the same issues with the Minister. As other Deputies have said, there is a problem with the time allowed for tabling amendments. Larger parties have a greater ability to respond and table amendments quite quickly, but it is difficult for individual Deputies to do so because they do not have the staff to assist them that swiftly.

When discussing the Bill last week, the Minister said that An Post won the last tendering process because it was able to provide services through its network of outlets. She also noted An Post's 95% population coverage over 15 km in rural areas and 3 km in urban areas. An Post is thus able to provide the services and matched the criteria for the tendering process. In addition, the Minister said she hoped that would be enough to facilitate the post office network in rural areas.

However, the programme for Government specifically stated that it would support the post office network. By removing from the main legislation the provision that An Post should be included in the provision of social welfare payments, it sends a bad message to the post office network and the public that the Government does not have this matter on its agenda.

Deputy Naughten said the statutory instrument can be changed at any time by future Ministers, so the provision needs to stay in the Bill. If the tendering process is correct, above board and facilitates the post office network in providing these services according to the tendering process, nobody will challenge it. Once we acknowledge that the post office can provide those services, the system cannot be challenged. Following last week's debate, I read an article about SuperValu priming itself to become a potential provider of services traditionally offered by An Post. SuperValu has many shops around the country in cities, towns and villages.

I wish to raise a question on the social aspect involved. If one is tendering to provide social protection payments, such as job seeker's allowance or carer's benefit, do the regulations governing the process state that service providers must be able to deal with customers individually and that workers in such places will have a certain wage? We are talking about servicing 3,000 staff who currently work in the post office network. What other measures are in the Bill to give An Post the ability to compete against super stores around the country?

When the postmasters met us previously they spoke about how bad the situation has become in Britain, where many rural post offices have closed because they cannot compete against Tesco. All Tesco is interested in is getting footfall across the door and bringing more people to its shops in order to promote its own products. The service it provides is questionable and we should be aware of the potential for this outcome in Ireland. I suggest the Minister should include the words "and-or" in regard to An Post being the preferred provider for these services.

There is a social weight to the services that the post office network provides to communities. We outlined the reasons last week and the Minister acknowledged that we are a concerned bunch of Deputies on this side of the House when it comes to the quality of services provided by An Post. We have to realise that the post office is a point of contact for many elderly people who receive services through An Post. Some 18% of Irish people do not have bank accounts and 23%, or almost one quarter of the population, do not have access to the Internet. Many people rely on the post office to pay their bills, paying €5 here and €10 there, because of austerity and the fact that they must count the pennies. We must emphasise the social aspect of the post office network as well as the economic viability of allowing, without undue favouritism, post offices to provide services to a wide range of people. The people who receive social welfare are not economic units or mere clients; they are service users who deserve respect from this State in terms of how they receive their social payments. We should do everything possible to ensure the EU cannot challenge us and, if it does challenge us, we should explain the social fabric of our nation and what the post office network provides.

I supported the amendments tabled by Deputy Ó Snodaigh last week and I similarly support the amendments he is moving today. I urge the Minister to consider including the phrase "service providers and-or An Post" to allow the State to maintain its support for the post office network. Communities, postmasters and An Post will thereby see that the Government is serious about backing the network. The programme for Government specifically commits to protecting the post office network. How can that commitment be achieved if services are opened to SuperValu and other networks in the towns and villages? They cannot provide the same type of service or knowledge of communities that An Post has built up over the last 100 years.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am fascinated by the detailed knowledge of parts of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency that Deputy Naughten appears to be developing. It is great to see that kind of comradery and cross-interest being displayed.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was also endorsing the Minister.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. He is looking after both of us. I appreciate his interest as much as I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does. In regard to the general issue of the tight timescale for progressing Social Welfare Bills, which arises from the need to implement various budget measures, the submission from FLAC commented on this. However, FLAC's submission would have serious implications for already tight timelines. I recall that it took the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection more than six months to examine the transgender Bill under the new arrangements. Everybody in this House operates to tight timetables. I am glad that the heads of the aforementioned Bill were published yesterday and I thank the committee and its members for its deliberations over a protracted period.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggested that we make the in-house guide on the various amendments to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act available to the public, subject to appropriate disclaimers. I would broadly favour that approach and I recognise it would be useful to Members, social welfare practitioners and the public in general. I will consider the suggestion. A certain amount of work may be required to prepare the guidelines for publication but I accept the Deputy's point and will revert to him. It is probably not something we can do immediately but I would be more than happy to consider it because I think it would be helpful to people. I thank him for the proposal.

I do not propose to accept the amendments. I will explicitly address the concerns that have been voiced by a number of Deputies regarding the technical amendments set out in section 3 of the Bill. There is a misapprehension that the proposed amendments will in some way threaten the future viability of An Post or diminish its position in social welfare legislation. That is absolutely not the case. I want to reassure older people, in particular, because there may be an amount of campaigning type propaganda - not here but outside - which is giving rise to fear among elderly people that the services they receive from the Department of Social Protection are at risk. I would like to send the message that they are not at risk.

The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. They aim to protect the State and its contract with An Post from challenges by third parties. This is what happened with the previous Government. A challenge was issued in 1999 which ultimately wound its way to the highest European courts and which suggested that the contract would have to be put out to tender. That is the history of the matter. The core objective we are trying to achieve is to give An Post, as the Department's contracted payments service provider, the necessary authority to assist the Department with its fraud and control measures. As a number of Deputies have noted in their contributions, An Post is uniquely placed to assist the Department in fraud and control measures. That is probably a significant part of the reason for An Post's success in winning the contract. As Minister I have, for example, directed that jobseekers' payments should be collected in person because An Post is in a unique position to assist with verification and to ensure the people who receive the payments are who they claim to be and are in this country, as they are required to be unless they have otherwise notified their local social welfare office.

These amendments support the contract I signed prior to Christmas and which is currently in place. This contract will maintain the continuity of cash payment services throughout the towns and villages of Ireland. As I indicated during our Committee Stage discussion, the contract has a duration of two years and will be renewable for a further four years. While I hope An Post will seek to renew the contract, that is a matter for the management of the company. Given that An Post gets a significant amount of valuable work through the Department of Social Protection, I am sure it will be in favour of maintaining the contract.

I do not want these unfounded concerns to cause unnecessary anxiety among the clients of my Department. The amendments provide a solid legislative basis for the arrangements under which payment services are to be delivered by An Post as a payment service provider.

Critically, they also enable An Post to carry out activities that will contribute to the prevention and deterrence of welfare fraud and enhanced control. That is very clear from the text of the Bill.

In all procurements by the Department of Social Protection or any other Department, EU procurement rules must be adhered to and there is a host of legal provisions and case law to guide a Department's procurement processes. Of particular importance in this regard is the requirement that certain principles must be applied and be seen to be applied; these include non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency. Non-compliance with these legal stipulations could render our procurements and the contracts arising from procurement competitions null and void. The contracts with An Post were legally contested and objected to during the previous Government's term by people entitled to do so.

We must ensure we avoid the risk of contracts being open to legal challenge in the interests of the continuity of welfare payments. There are valuable consequences of An Post being a contractor for the company and postmasters, which people have mentioned, and it is also important for services to our clients. Transparency is of particular importance and the European Court of Justice ruling made it clear in a 2007 decision that any further contract without a formal and public competition would put us in breach of EU directives. Deputy O'Dea was a Minister at that time but the legislation was not amended after the court ruling, although arrangements were put in place for cash payment through An Post until 2013. In preparation for the cessation of those arrangements, my priority was on having a robust procurement competition and an open process. This procurement was the first full and clear specification of the scope and scale of services required to support cash payment services to welfare clients, with specific regard to issues around the prevention and detection of fraud and the enhancement of the control procedures.

With regard to the work of postmasters, the business strategy of An Post is in the first instance the concern of the company's board and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. My officials and I will continue to work resolutely with An Post and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and his Department officials to ensure a strong and vibrant post office network. I serve an urban area, although it has a rural hinterland, and the Deputies have mainly spoken about rural post offices. Small post offices and sub-post offices in urban areas are equally important to people living in urban areas.

I am aware of the concerns aired in debates but as the Minister I must ensure the arrangements entered into can stand up to scrutiny, and neither I nor An Post can be exposed to risk with the existing contract won by An Post. In this respect Deputies must be careful what they wish for. Some people seem to suggest that people should not have any right to use any access to electronic fund transfers, for example. The An Post business case must be developed by the company but it should develop a capacity for electronic funds services either on its own or potentially in conjunction with another provider. It is a significant and important contract area. On Committee Stage some people veered almost to arguing that people should be forced to use their local post office. Would people put up their hands to indicate how many are receiving child benefit directly from a local post office? If somebody has a bank account, although people bemoan it the preference is to use the service for the sake of convenience; that is instead of going to queue in a local post office. The critical issue is the upgrading of services within local post offices to ensure they can compete with electronic fund transfers.

I do not know how many Deputies would say to retirees in receipt of a pension from the Department of Social Protection that they should not be allowed the choice of putting the money directly into bank accounts but rather that they should have to queue at a post office. I am not sure that is what Deputies intend.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I clarified that matter earlier.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate needs to move to the area of further services and modernisation. Perhaps An Post should consider such issues so it can become a competitive service provider across a range of services.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Naughten referred to the mass meeting at Cappataggle and we have had a few of them in the south as well, with mass meetings about the closure of local post offices. Government Deputies were the most vocal in their undying loyalty to the preservation of the post office network. All we were missing in some places was a stack of bibles, and if they were available every one of the Deputies would have put their hands on them and sworn eternal loyalty to the post office network. Today they are ready to come here to eradicate the one reference to An Post in social welfare legislation.

The Minister's excuse for the short timeframe was that we spent six months dealing with transgender legislation. That was fairly well ventilated but surely it is no excuse for rushing social welfare legislation. How can such an unseemly rush be justified in that way? It is nonsense.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister must take us for fools. As far as I can make out, her argument comes to this.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is distracted.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In 2007 the European Court of Justice indicated there had to be a competition with the provision of services from the social welfare Department. The competition took place and An Post won it. At the time, the relevant legislation was from 2005 and it specifically mentioned An Post. The Minister has now told us that somebody could now have a better chance of challenging the legislation if the proposed change is not made. It is a legal nonsense. The competition took place and if somebody was to challenge the validity of the contract with An Post now, that party would do so on the basis that An Post was mentioned in the 2005 legislation. Any change to it now will not alter that fact, as the Minister well knows.