Joe O'Toole (Independent)

That is fine. Amendment No. 7 relates to a matter that goes to the heart of the rural postal service. Section 16 states that universal postal services means"that on every working day, except in such circumstances or geographical conditions as the Commission considers to be exceptional, there is at least ... one delivery to the home or premises of every person in the State [everyone agrees that this should be the case] or, as the Commission considers appropriate, under such conditions as it may determine from time to time, to appropriate installations". In other words, one delivery will be made to the home or premises of every person or to appropriate installations. Effectively, this means that post will not be delivered to the home or premises of every person in the State.

I wish to be clear with regard to what is intended in this amendment. In apartment complexes, all of the post boxes for the various dwellings might be located in the lobby area or on the outside, a couple of yards away from the front door. I do not have a difficulty with that. However, the way the section is worded appears to indicate that people may find in their post boxes notes directing them to collect their post at local sorting offices. Amendment No. 7, about which I feel strongly, is designed to ensure that the universal service obligation will be maintained. That obligation cannot be maintained in circumstances where a person might decide that instead of delivering a letter to a Mr. Leyden who lives at the top of Slieve Bawn, the latter can collect it at the post office in Strokestown or wherever. We do not want an arrangement of that type to apply.

I am seeking protection in respect of the universal service obligation. On the other hand, I have no intention of being ridiculous. Many apartment complexes and gated communities have blocks of post boxes located either inside or outside the front entrance. I am not objecting to that. I am, however, objecting to the way the section is worded because it could mean anything. In particular, it could be interpreted to mean that post does not need to be delivered to a person's home or premises, which was always what was intended under the universal service obligation.

I am of the view that the wording in the section must be tightened up. I am sure the Minister will explain what is intended but under the relevant provision, as drafted, universal postal service means one delivery to the home or promises of every person in the State or to appropriate installations. That is far too vague and it represents a diminution of service. Under the section, there would certainly not be a universal postal service and the type of service we discussed earlier, which Senators and the Minister value, would definitely not be provided.

I propose that the section should simply read "one delivery to the home or premises of every person in the State" because that is what the universal service obligation entails. Unless someone is in a position to convince me otherwise, I am of the view that this is what was always intended in respect of the universal service obligation. I am certainly of the opinion that the European directive envisages a delivery to each person.

A man who delivers post in Donegal was interviewed on radio this morning. This matter relates to a community service which displays the State in action and engaging with the community. It also relates to the kind of service that was envisaged by Europe and that we need to protect. There has been much discussion about Europe in recent weeks. What is involved here relates to Europe protecting a service which national governments might be tempted to diminish. This is, therefore, something emanating from Europe which we would welcome. The section, as drafted, provides a lever to create space and reduce the impact of what was originally intended.

I ask that the Minister either accept amendment No. 7 or indicate how my concerns might be met in some other way.