Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

At the outset, I would like to declare an interest. I am a sub-postmaster and have been a member of the Irish Postmasters Union since 1992, so this is my 22nd year as a postmaster. When I took over that office, it was a manual office like all other offices throughout the country. It became automated in the mid 1990s. In 1997, I recall a protest taking place.

I remember it because it was the only time I carried a coffin with nobody in it. We went up Molesworth Street and it represented the death knell of post offices. I commend the union on bringing the issue of sub-post offices to the attention of the Government and the Dáil and into public consciousness. The protest in 1997 led to negotiations between the Irish Postmasters Union, IPU, An Post and the Government that were facilitated by Mr. Phil Flynn as mediator, which led to an interdepartmental group. The group published a report in 2001 and the conclusions or recommendations, which we have not heard much of since, closed 600 offices directly. The report recommended severance payments for postmasters and for them to open up agencies. It recommended that for the future viability of post offices, there had to be consolidation of the network. Regrettably for communities, that is what happened. In my area, since I became postmaster in a small peninsula, I have seen post offices such as Cahermore, Garinish Island, Waterfall, Adrigole, Trafrask and Coomhola all shut. A few closed before the report was published, many of them since then. I am not talking about postmasters, An Post or the IPU but about communities that have lost the service. In 2001, at the time of publication of the report, there were 2,000 An Post post offices in the country . Over the past four or five years, post offices have continued to close, regrettably, but the rate has been greatly reduced.

I want to address the contention of Deputy Dooley about Government inaction and the motion. The committee published its report on the future sustainability of the post office network. I am conflicted in this matter but I recall the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, saying that a Cabinet sub-committee would be set up to see how national and local government could use the post office network to deliver Government business. The issue of how post offices can deliver Government business has been ongoing since the foundation of the State, but there is a fundamental difference between a Cabinet sub-committee and an interdepartmental group of senior civil servants in the relevant Departments discussing the future of the network. When the interdepartmental committee discussed the network, 600 post offices closed. That is the action we do not want. After the vote, it would be great if we could get a contract to say that the Government will do X, Y and Z through post offices, negotiate it over the next six months and deliver it in 12 months. However, that will not happen. Instead, a Cabinet sub-committee will discuss how local and national government and State agencies can pull business in through the post offices.

We got the signature on the social welfare contract to be delivered through An Post. I agree it gives us breathing space but the contract will ultimately expire, as contracts did before. There is a bigger and more fundamental issue beyond the social protection contract, which is the movement in this country and globally to a cashless transaction system. Has the IPU negotiated with An Post and received commitments on how to meet the challenge head-on? Coming in here and railing against the introduction of a cashless society in 2017, 2020 or 2025 is setting ourselves up like King Canute.

Specific reference was made to Department of Social Protection contracts and the Government, by stealth and by design, actively trying to take the business away. Reference was made to a letter, which I have also seen and on which I seek clarification. There was discussion about this letter issued from the social welfare office in Bantry. I have seen a copy of the letter and it includes a handwritten notation by a clerk within the Department of Social Protection seeking bank details. My information is that the letter is the only letter of this kind and may have been written in error. It is referred to as the Bantry letter from the Department of Social Protection office. Perhaps the witnesses can confirm this is not the policy of the Department of Social Protection. In almost all cases, an option is given for the post office to be used for payments, with examples of exceptions including adoptive benefit, family income supplement, the health and safety benefit, maternity benefit, disablement benefit and the bereavement grant. These are not available in post offices but every other payment in the social welfare system can be made through post offices.

I commend the union on having raised awareness. Some 50% of payments are over the counter payments and I submit to the union that some 95% of social welfare claimants can access payments through the local post office. I will not ask for a show of hands but all Oireachtas Members can ask themselves whether their utility payments, which can quite easily be done, child benefit payments or State pensions - and there are a few pensioners in the Oireachtas - are paid through the banks or the post office. Based on the figures submitted, I would suggest that half of those voting for the motion tonight have no payments going through the post office and half of those opposing the motion and voting for the amendment do not use the post office when they could. There is an important point to be made to the consumer. People who use the post office will keep it and if they do not use it, they will lose it.