Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The following is the point to be made about primary and second legislation. The Minister has made the argument, which I accept, that secondary legislation cannot undermine or change primary legislation. There is no argument about this. In this instance, we are moving in the other direction. We are translating what is contained in secondary legislation, a regulation, in primary legislation. There is no reason we would not stitch the primary legislation to deal with the matter. However, the Minister's answer was that the regulation had worked very well to date.

I want to explain a few points. First - this is an old speech of mine - we rarely get to discuss regulations in this or the other House. Usually they are laid before the Houses and unless the Government side wants to have a resolution agreed within 28 days, they are not discussed. The Minister will find that there was no discussion in the House of this particular regulation. If there had been, he would have heard all of the points raised by Members today.

The second point is crucial. The Minister has said the regulation has worked very well to date. It has and no one would be shouting to have it changed if this was to be done under the protection of An Post. However, what we are doing is enabling outsiders to become involved in providing a service. We do not yet know their names. It might be Veolia or someone else who will tender to provide a service. We have no experience of what they might do. Neither does the Minister. We trust the people who are delivering the service; although we might complain about them and have an argument with them now and again, at least we know who they are. We have done business with them since the foundation of the State and their protection of the service is long established. As Senator Coffey said, post boxes, some of which have the Queen's head on them, have been in place for 200 years. However, that is not what we are talking about - this is the crucial point of our discussion - rather, we are talking about people whose interest will be to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this, but because they will be interested in making a profit they will be required to look at the most cost effective way of providing a service. If we pass legislation which allows them to provide a reduced level of service, we will not be doing for the taxpayer and the community a good day's work. That is the point at issue concerning the primary legislation and the raison d'etre of our position which I want the Minister to understand. He can agree or disagree with me, but that is where we are coming from. Perhaps those who will enter the market will be better, more effective and caring and provide a better delivery service than An Post, who knows; we cannot know this. However, we have to legislate for either position.

There is also the point made by Senator Hanafin about installations. I still do not know what an installation is; all I know is that it is not a house or a premises and that it could be located anywhere. I would not be doing my duty if I did not challenge this. That is where I stand on amendment No. 7.