Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and his officials to our Second Stage debate. I thank the Department's officials who offered advice and a briefing on the legislation. It is a helpful service, although it is not provided universally. People are under time pressures, so I appreciate their help.

The debate on rural areas and their service providers is not always a question of economics. I have made this point in respect of the closure of rural creameries and of the role rural pubs play in terms of rural isolation, community and how people congregate, socialise and interact. The local primary school also plays a significant role in this regard. From this point of view, we must be careful not to scale back what is on offer in rural Ireland on a purely economic basis. For various reasons, it has been under considerable pressure in recent years, so we must preserve what fibre is left of it. Recently, I had this argument with someone who claimed a particular creamery should be closed. Having visited the creamery and given my understanding of the interaction that takes place, I know the creamery issue was about more than just the buying and selling of goods. It is a place where people meet and interact. This is somewhat like the rural transport initiative. Were one to apply an economic or accounting argument to the creamery, one would have got rid of it long ago. However, it is not just a question of economics, given factors such as significant social interaction in rural areas, combating rural isolation and preserving the remaining social fabric. I hope we never take an axe to that type of service.

I understand that the universal service obligation, USO, addresses my concerns. I acknowledge the lobbying done by people throughout the country, particularly those in my area, who have a vested interest in post offices. I also acknowledge the worthwhile and detailed information sent to us by the Communications Workers Union, CWU. We are discussing the delivery of letters to rural and urban areas. Historically, the provision of postal services has been based on the USO and the same-price-goes-anywhere principle. This was supported by a monopoly or a reserved area wherein An Post was the only operator that could carry out the delivery and collection of mail below a certain weight. This enabled An Post to cross-subsidise by utilising profitable urban routes to carry the burden of loss-making in rural areas. This is an important point.

Senator Healy Eames discussed cherrypicking or cream-skimming, so I will only touch on them briefly, as I might be repetitious. Competitors will enter the market and undercut An Post on the profitable routes. The delivery of telephone books has been taken out of the hands of An Post by private commercial interests. I am making an observation, not a criticism. One enters an estate or passes a street where there is clearly a derelict house or a house that is no longer in use but in front of which a telephone book wrapped in plastic has been thrown. This constitutes littering, but there is also an issue about the quality and delivery of service. How sure are we that the service being provided is of the same standard as that of An Post? This is not entirely the case.

Competitors will not compete in loss-making routes, but An Post will still be required to service those routes under the USO. If it loses market share on profitable routes, it cannot cross-subsidise and, in a short time, will go to the wall. The only way to open up the market and fund the USO is to impose the same obligation on all operators to deliver everywhere at the same price as An Post. This would maintain the status quo following the entry of private operators. This occurred in Finland and in countries with similar urban and rural population dispersal patterns. Our population is no different from those of the countries in which this has been done successfully.

Our legislation must be clear. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, is amiable and has been good in amending legislation where he has agreed with points made by the Opposition. We should examine the Finnish model as a means of opposing cherrypicking. I hope the Minister can understand my point about maintaining the status quo and adopting the Finnish model.

In the current climate, the word "regulation" has various connotations that depend on the context. We complain about a lack of regulation in our banking system and over-regulation in other areas, but we must be clear where ComReg's role is concerned. For example, in what respect has the Taxi Regulator been successful and why has it not been successful in other respects? We must ensure that we not over-regulate the industry. The service being received by the customer, Joe and Mary Soap, must be of the same standard. We must examine the matter from this aspect and not purely in terms of the administration of regulation.

The Minister might have experience in this regard, but he certainly knows better than I do that, in recent years, there has been a proliferation of regulators. We need to ensure the regulator is responsible to the Minister, irrespective of who the Minister is and whether there has been a change of Government. There must be accountability and transparency. As public representatives, we all offer ourselves to the electorate from time to time. It is right that we are held accountable and thoroughly scrutinised. I do not like the new tier of administration, be it in the form of a quango or another body set up by the Government to administer a particular service and from which there is no accountability or transparency. When discharging our functions as public representatives, it is good to know with whom one is dealing and the level of interaction allowable by the organisation. Accountability is paramount in the delivery of a service. I urge the Minister to ensure the regulator is answerable not only to him, but also to the Oireachtas on key issues like the USO, which has national implications. It is important that we reserve our right to bring someone before an Oireachtas committee for questioning on key issues.

A strong employment issue is attached to the legislation. I do not need to explain to anyone how important the preservation of jobs in rural areas is. Sadly, jobs are the only game in town because of the lack of them. We must prevent the further loss of jobs in rural Ireland. West County Cork has lost jobs in the construction, manufacturing and pharmaceutical industries, for example, in the company for which I worked before becoming a full-time public representative, Schering-Plough in Innishannon, which had a significant workforce in a rural area. We must be mindful that the preservation of jobs in rural areas is paramount. As I have often stated in the House, each lost job costs the State approximately €20,000 in lost taxation and social welfare payments. We do not need to spend too much time on these figures to know we are much better off maintaining as many jobs as possible.

Senator Ó Brolcháin broached the matter of postal codes. He stated that he lived in SW19 in Wimbledon. I lived in SW14 in west Kensington, then the less popular address of NW2 in Willesden. I would be mindful of introducing postal codes. I have particular views on any initiative in this regard, but whatever we do must be efficient and effective and provide good value for money. A number of years ago, the Department of Health and Children and the HSE allocated approximately €1.9 million for a family resource centre for Dunmanway in west County Cork, but it never went ahead for a number of reasons. Planning was one possible reason, as was, perhaps, the location of the proposed building. In recent times, however, Teagasc was rationalised and put its building on the market. The HSE purchased it for €180,000 to locate the family resource centre in it, effectively at less than a tenth of the price it was willing to pay during the boom. We must be very mindful of value for money. Whatever scheme the Department proposes to introduce or whatever change it makes, we need to be clear that value for money is at the heart of it, the taxpayer is getting a good deal and the service to be provided is good, effective and efficient.

It is essential that employment standards are protected. I refer in particular to some of the information provided to us about the European postal directive which says that social considerations should be taken into account when preparing the opening up of the postal market. That goes back to my earlier contribution and we need to be very clear about this. The actual service being provided is never down to economics, audits or finance. We must be mindful of social considerations. To give another example, in recent times the TUPE provision was removed from a contract for a ferry service for Cape Clear Island off the west Cork coast. The idea of the TUPE clause, involving a transfer of undertakings, was to protect the rights, conditions and employment standards of the people moving from one employer to another. Not only are there employment standards, there are also social considerations to be considered. We need to be sure about that and if we do not do it this time, we can guess what will happen next time. It happened in the case to which I referred.

There are many more points I wish to make, but some of them have been discussed in detail by Senator Healy Eames who obviously used some of the same lobbying information as I have. I wish to make this point in terms of An Post. It has never needed State aid or taxpayers' support. The price of the stamp funds the universal service obligation which ensures delivery to every single door. With the removal of the postal monopoly from An Post, it is unclear how the universal service obligation will fare. I ask the Minister to be especially mindful of that.

I acknowledge the support and help offered by the Minister's officials. I hope the Minister will carry forward the same degree of flexibility he has shown in other legislation he has steered through this House.

One other concern is downstream access. Senator Healy Eames also referred to this. I will not be in the Chamber for the Minister's reply but I will watch it on the monitor. I hope he takes these points on board because they were meant to be taken in a constructive fashion, and that we will see our way towards amending the legislation on later Stages, assuming we are still here.