Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

The general thrust and purpose of these amendments is - while accepting the diktats of Europe and the requirements of the relevant directive - to preserve the universal service obligation that applies in this country. In other words, our aim is to ensure that, with no exceptions, people's post will be delivered to them each day regardless of where they live. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are concerned that the subsection with the wording, "or, as the Commission considers appropriate, under such conditions as it may determine from time to time, to appropriate installations", could be used to the detriment of the universal service to require people in a given area, such as the residents in an isolated rural area, to travel to a central point to get their post. That is unacceptable. That should not be allowed. It would go against the spirit of the universal service obligation and would be against the rights of the people in those areas.

Gradually, as one diminishes a service, the diminution continues. If it becomes all right one year not to deliver to a person because he or she lives at the back of a mountain, the next year it will become all right not to deliver to people who live close by and so on until, eventually and by extension, people go to a central location for their post.

We spoke earlier about the considerable advantage of and social service provided by the postperson coming to the homes of people and going up boreens and meeting people. Sometimes they are a person's only visitor. This is not merely about letters. It is about a communications network and support system. Senator Coffey stated earlier that any postperson in the country is as knowledgeable about his or her community as many local politicians or social workers, and they provide multiple functions. It is important we preserve that.

My party believes this part of the Bill could be used wrongly. It is worth saying that neither an official in the House nor the Minister decided this morning to thwart the service by providing this in the Bill, but that could be the outcome. As we have drawn the Minister's attention to it in the interests of improving the legislation, we appeal to him to withdraw it and leave the matter as it is.

The Minister need have no fear that when exceptions arise and when human difficulty arises, these will not be long being identified and acted upon anyway. The reality is that on a given day where there is a large dog somewhere, there are shocking weather conditions or whatever, people will use their discretion. That level of discretion is fair enough but one does not want to give a hostage to fortune. This part of the Bill runs the risk of being a hostage to fortune if it is left as it is. It could allow commercial operators to pretend to provide a universal service but instead asking unfortunate people to go to a central area to collect their post. We do not want that. I think no one in the House would stand over that.

I want to put on the record of the House that I share the distinction with Senator O'Sullivan of being a former part-time postperson. The Minister has another expert.