Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I do not want to argue with the Minister of State's points, but he is not picking up on our points. The length is not the issue that will preclude innovation. I completely agree with the Minister of State's point on that. Of course roads are different, but I just used that as an example of contracts, pay back and long-term investment. It is up to the Minister State to accept or reject that. Of course these things are like chalk and cheese, but they are still contracts, even though they are on different issues.

The Minister of State has not dealt with Senator O'Reilly's second amendment, which refers to costs and quality. That is where we are being caught out all the time. The Minister of State said to Senator O'Reilly that this is something we can talk to the Minister about. One of my biggest problems with this Bill is that Ministers are being taken out of the equation. I failed to pass an amendment the last day which would ensure that a Minister could intervene in certain situations. There is not much point in telling the Minister any more about anything. The Minister can bring things to the attention of the regulator, but the regulator is the person with the authority. The Minister of State is about to propose an amendment changing the word "specified" to "determined". I do not want the Minister to micro-manage but, as we have learned from the HSE and other bodies, there comes a time when a Minister must be able to intervene. I wanted that to happen and it is not happening. It is all the more reason why we are more careful about this issue. Surely, in the light of what the Minister of State said, is it not important to re-examine amendment No. 16, which states the commission may determine different universal postal providers, having regard to the need to ensure there is no duplication on each service provider, and also that he would take into consideration cost and quality? Is that not completely in line with what the Minister of State said when we discussed these amendments: the quality of service and if we need further innovation or approaches, new technology?

Senator Hanafin made the point about the level of capital investment made by An Post in recent years. That is why I wanted the length of time to be extended. An Post is building offices and putting in sorting equipment that may then be moved out of the equation. Private sector operations are required in terms of proper management for the directors of companies to ensure they do not invest in something they could not get payback on. An Post has made enormous capital investments.

The Minister of State mentioned the market and I have no problem with markets. In my time as president of a trade union, I always managed to puncture the privatisation argument against nationalisation by saying a plague on both those houses, we need competition. The Minister of State made the same point about changing his phone line. Old fashioned man that I am, I still have my Eircom line but I take the point. I told Bord Gáis I would not change provider from ESB until ESB was allowed to compete on a level playing field; I come from a statist background for which I make no apologies. I insist, however, that the public sector provides quality, service, efficiency, effectiveness and a lean operation. In future markets, that will be the only way to survive. I am trying to put in place something that allows us to maintain An Post and that is why I want ministerial involvement and a longer term, why I want us to take cost and quality into consideration. We have lost that.

The Minister of State has changed from an Eircom line.