Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The effect of section 29 will be the same as asking a shopkeeper to give up a counter in his shop to his opposition to come in and sell the same products as himself. The Minister has made it clear where he stands. I accept section 28(9) provides that the commission "shall take into account any costs avoided by a universal postal service provider", which is good, "and network costs of the universal postal service provider involved in granting such access". The Commission can take into account savings made by An Post. New entrants can take advantage of An Post's infrastructure and also of savings An Post makes by not having to bear the same costs in the first instance. The Minister is not taking into consideration, however, the overall cost of delivering post to every island between Malin Head and Mizen Head and between east and west.

There is something mean about this. An Post is providing a service through its network but new entrants can take advantage of the infrastructure it has built up. Savings made on the infrastructure can be taken into consideration by the new entrants when making their pitch but they do not have to take into consideration the overall cost of the legally required universal service. There is something wrong, mean and unbalanced about that. That is my problem with the section. We are saying to new providers that they can come into the shop and start selling the same product across the counter but they do not have to pay for the cost of the building, the rates, the insurance and so on. If one was running a large restaurant, it would be as if a sandwich bar merchant could walk in and legally set up a counter in the restaurant to sell sandwiches without having to pay for the building, rates or rent. All the while he would make money selling sandwiches. It is unfair. Section 29(2) provides that "Subject to subsection (3), the Commission may give a direction to a universal postal service provider requiring it to permit access to other postal service providers to its postal infrastructure", which includes everything from post boxes, delivery boxes, post code arrangements and so on.

I would not have a difficulty with this section if the earlier sections had been amended. This is not a level playing pitch and the taxpayer will lose. As Senator Hanafin has pointed out, the taxpayer has made a significant investment in building up the postal service to being the 7th best in Europe out of 29 countries. Why can we not continue to gain from that by providing for fair competition and by ensuring any entrant into the marketplace has to take account of that? Section 29 is unfair because of the failure to amend previous sections which will create unfair competition. Everything is tilted in favour of the new arrivals. This means that if I were running An Post as a private operation and I knew that someone was coming in to pitch against me next week and I knew of a saving that could be made, I would delay putting the saving into operation until the current crowd were dealt because under this section if I made the saving, I would be acting against my own best interests. Section 28(9) provides that the Commission can take into consideration costs avoided by the postal provider. The section is counter-intuitive, unfair and unbalanced. It does not provide for a level playing pitch or fair competition and it is not required by the European Commission or any other body. This constitutes allowing the pendulum to swing too far away against An Post.