Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for the concern he expressed about post offices. I am sure he is aware from reading the Grant Thornton report that a grand total of four post offices have closed. Most often, such closures are due to the death of the proprietor or postmaster.

We are all - particularly those of us on the Government side - concerned and anxious that post offices and sub-post offices have a viable and successful economic future. We want to ensure they will continue to provide services and employment in the areas in which they are located.

Sometimes during the debate, one would think post offices and sub-post offices were mainly in rural areas, including very remote rural areas, but the fact is that there are a significant number of sub-post offices in urban areas. The latter are just as important as the sub-post offices in rural areas.

The measure is designed to have a number of objectives, one of which is to protect the State and the contract with An Post from challenge by third parties. A legal issue arose some years ago in which the post office contract or relationship with the Department of Social Protection was challenged. Under European law and the various rules of the European Union, it is possible for other providers or potential providers, whether one likes it or not, to challenge existing providers if they feel there is a flaw in how the business and contract-awarding has been conducted. Such cases are taken and such a case was taken. The latter found its way to the European Court of Justice. Very serious legal advice was given to the effect that the contract ultimately had to go out to tender.

Senator Cullinane did not say that An Post bid for and won the contract but I am delighted to do so. Given the Senator's wish to be positive about post offices, I am a little surprised he did not congratulate An Post on winning a contract which represents enormously valuable business. The contract is for an initial period of two years and this is renewable for a further period of four years. This amendment deals with the legal advice as to how to represent properly the payment service provider in law so the basis of the contract would not be open to a further legal challenge, as happened during the period of the last Government. One must remember, however, that unless Sinn Féin wants to say there will be no right for people to use commercial law to seek to exercise what they believe to be their rights under EU and Irish legislation, its position is questionable.

Some Sinn Féin Members suggested in the Dáil that people should not be allowed to have their pensions or child benefit sent to them via their bank account. I would love to know how many Members of the Seanad in receipt of a payment such as child benefit have it paid into their bank account or whether they queue up at their local post office. I would like to be enlightened on that. The move nowadays is towards electronic funds transfers, particularly in the case of people who already have bank accounts. In Ireland, however, very significant numbers of people do not have bank accounts and, therefore, if they are receiving an income from the Department of Social Protection, having access to the post office is vital.

As Minister, I require that all jobseeker payments, particularly to new jobseekers and those under 62, be made via the post office system in order to ensure that people present at the post office to collect their payment in person. That is an extremely valuable piece of work that the post office does in connection with social welfare payments. It is one of the services that we specified in the contract. With a view to deterring fraud, including identity fraud, it is important that people show up in person. As the Seanad may be aware, we are rolling out a new personal services card that allows for a much higher level of scrutiny of identification details, through the photograph of the person presenting to collect money. Owing to this, we needed in this legislation to provide An Post, as the Department's contracted payment service provider, with the necessary authority to assist the Department with its anti-fraud and control measures. Therefore, the measure supports the contract, which I signed before Christmas. I am a little amazed the Senator did not congratulate An Post; perhaps he did not know it won the contract. I am surprised he did not congratulate the staff in An Post on their successful bid for the contract. The contract is currently in place and it will maintain continuity of cash payment services throughout towns and villages.

Concern was expressed by the Senator's colleague last week that this matter could have a devastating effect. Winning a contract, according to the Senator's colleague in Sinn Féin, is devastating for An Post. I do not know whether the party would like to rethink that. I believe An Post should be congratulated on winning the contract. So many people on a social welfare payment collect their money in cash or do not have a bank account. Without a bank account, they are not in a position to avail themselves of any other service.

The concerns that have been raised are baseless. It may be good politics to scaremonger. Many people are delighted with scaremongering as a political objective, and some parties specialise in it. Whether it is better in the long-run in terms of the confidence people in various locations have in their services is for the Senator to decide.

The measure provides a solid legislative basis for the arrangement under which payment services will be delivered by An Post as a payment service provider. It will also enable An Post to carry out the activities that will contribute to the prevention of welfare fraud and, therefore, make sure the payments go to the right people. That is important. Last year we had recoveries in regard to overpayments, most of which arose from fraud and errors on the part of the customers. They amounted to well over €70 million, which is a very significant amount. It is almost equal to what the Department spends on the travel arrangements and free travel, which I am delighted to say is not under threat.. However, I understand that some organisations consider it to be the case that there is a possible threat. As Minister, I must state I value the free travel arrangements introduced by a previous Government, just as I value the post offices. The arrangements have continued for 40 or 50 years, or more.

These amendments will actually consolidate and enhance the position of An Post as the service provider and make the contract less subject to legal attack from others, who have actually taken cases against An Post and who took several references to the court, which they are perfectly entitled to do, during the time of the previous Government.