David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ryan. However, I do not welcome this legislation. These are utilities which should provide maximise service to the public. I do not believe this will happen under this legislation. We have had the example of Eircom in respect of which we had forelock-tugging to abstract notions of privatisation and of competition. Where has competition got us in that context? Eircom was flung onto the market and taken over by one of the moguls, was asset stripped and thrown back like a herring bone picked clean. We have the lowest investment in broadband thanks to the competition to which we are paying such marked attention here. I do not believe in it.

We are talking about services to the community. Competition in this area will weaken rural services. There is no provision to protect people against the cherry picking that will take place. There is often no garda presence in rural areas. There may be in a local town a button one can push to speak to a machine. This legislation will result in a weakening of the personal contact which many people in isolated rural areas depend on in terms of the social fabric. I do not like that aspect of the legislation. I disregard the references in the Minister's speech to effective competition. I do not bow down to these shibboleths, rather I look underneath them to see if they serve the people. In my opinion, most of the time they do not. The same is true of the markets and other notions to which we have allowed people to give absurd deference.

I accept there is a shifting pattern and that people use electronic communication. It may well be that the Minister has a point when he says the postal service needs to reassess itself. I am glad that it has been given some degree of security for seven years. I will not be supporting this Bill unless it is substantially amended. I welcome that at least the Minister has provided that there will be Exchequer support if an unfair burden is created on An Post. However, this indicates to me that the Minister knows well that there will be an unfair burden on it. We all know that. I do not accept that this legislation should be supported or that it is necessary.

I am not aware of what other speakers said earlier as I was attending a meeting. The historical base of our postal service under the universal service obligation is important in that it obliges the State services to deliver and collect mail for the same price, regardless of location. This is akin to the provision of social bus services in the country. The USO was supported and ensured An Post had exclusive rights to anything under 50 grammes. I do not believe it is good to abolish this and will be opposing this aspect of the legislation. It is important that we continue to regard this country as composed of a society of people and not as a market with competition and so on. I will be strongly supporting the principle of universal service obligation.

Senator Keaveney referred to cherry picking. We all know this is what is going to happen. This is what happens in a commercial market. A company would be wrong not to do so. That is the ethos, not of An Post, but of commercial firms. They will take the profitable routes and undercut An Post, which will be hamstrung because it will have to try to continue the unprofitable routes. This is unfair competition. If An Post loses its market share, it will be in serious financial trouble.

If one is to open up the market and fund the universal service obligation one has to impose on all operators the same obligation to deliver everywhere at the same price and in the same way. In other words, we must have market equalisation. Let us have a fair playing field as between An Post and these possible new entrants. These new entrants will also have downstream access whereby they can enter at a lower rate than An Post. The implications of this, in terms of employment, are stark. Royal Mail in Britain is losing money because it is delivering mail for competitors at a rate set by the regulator. It was the regulator that insisted on increases in gas and electricity, which was directly against the interest of the public and utility companies. The regulator has facilitated cherry picking. Some 21,000 full time and 12,000 part time jobs have been lost in Germany. I could go on and give more figures but I am sure other Members have already done so.

I am deeply suspicious of this legislation. I will be seeking to amend it. If it survives unamended, I will be opposing it.