David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, to delete lines 7 to 9.

As they amendments are similar, we have no difficulty with their being grouped.
On Second Stage, we flagged the fact that we were opposed to section 3 and outlined the reasons that was the case. We indicated that we would table amendments on Committee Stage and have done so. Earlier in the year the Dáil engaged in a very interesting Private Members' debate on a motion tabled by Independent Deputies on using the services of An Post in the making of social welfare payments. As the Minister will know, when that debate took place, the trade unions involved were very concerned about any move that would strip post offices of services and their ability to provide them. That concern arises as a result of the very precarious position in which some post offices, especially those in rural areas, find themselves. Post offices are important to the social fabric not just of rural areas but also if communities the length and breadth of the State.
We are concerned about section 3 in the context of the move to replace the term "An Post" with that of "payment service provider". I listened to what the Minister had to say on this matter during her reply to the debate on Second Stage and also in the Dáil. I did not, however, find any comfort in her words. If one reads the explanatory memorandum, it appears that section 3 is benign enough. The explanatory memorandum states the section "provides for changes to enable functions relating to payment of benefit or assistance and related payment services to be provided under arrangements with selected payment service providers". The problem is that neither the Bill nor the explanatory memorandum refers to An Post. In fact, the purpose of section 3 is to delete all references to An Post from the principal Act. The Minister has previously indicated that this is necessary as a result of what is deemed to be the privileged position An Post holds, particularly in the context of any consideration of service provision in the future. I do not have a difficulty in this regard. An Post should hold a privileged position, especially in view of the hugely important role post offices play in communities throughout the State. The post office network is crucial to the social fabric, especially in rural areas but also in urban neighbourhoods. The removal of An Post's status creates the possibility of a multinational company or bank with no connection to communities swooping in and acquiring the contract for social welfare payments. That would not be in the best interests of social welfare recipients or the wider community.
The Minister will be aware of the Grant Thornton report on the future of post offices which was published some time ago and highlighted how up to 557 of the 1,150 post offices could close if the social welfare contact was removed from An Post.