Michael Lowry (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

A number of the questions I intended to ask have been answered. The contributions that have been made have been very informative and useful. Unfortunately the common theme running through them is a confirmation of what we know, which is that An Post is in deep financial trouble. It is in a perilous position and, effectively, in its present format it is running into the sand.

Mr. Pigot made the comment that he was here in 2002. With all the people we have around the table this evening, particularly including the Department officials, why does An Post have to go to the edge? Why does it have to be on the brink of collapse before some constructive and positive action is taken?

Mr. Kerr's report has been generally received favourably because it makes a genuine attempt to address the many issues that need to be addressed. I ask Mr. McRedmond whether Bobby Kerr's report will become the basis and subject of analysis and discussion through the McKinsey report. In other words, there must be a starting point. Many advancements have been made in terms of the co-operation Mr. Kerr's committee received. We need to expand on that and see what elements of it are workable and achievable.

We all want to preserve An Post, we want to retain the network and we want a universal service. The Minister would be pleased to hear that the Government do not necessarily have to pay for a universal service but somebody has to pay for it. The Government most definitely has a responsibility in funding some element of the universal service. If it is not going to be funded by way of a subvention, the postmasters around the country would expect that financial support will be provided if they are to maintain the service, which is part of the basic fabric of rural communities. The Government has a role, an obligation and a responsibility to play its part in that regard.

The reality is that An Post, as we know it, is a failed entity. It is floundering. In its existing format it does not have a future. If one was to consider it in any context, one would say it is currently on life support and in need of financial resuscitation. I have no difficulty with the increase of between 12% and 38% across An Post's product range. Obviously that must be done because An Post is in crisis but I ask Mr. McRedmond what assessment has been done of the impact such a price increase would have on the volume of mail traffic? How confident is he that this increase will be an interim measure that will be successful? With such increases, there can be the habit of saying in two years' time that we have not had sufficient time or we may need another increase for another further two years before we can make the hard decisions that are necessary.

Everybody involved understands the difficulties with an Post. We have had it analysed and assessed, we have had evaluations, reports and recommendations but there is very little time left for reflection. I am glad that at least the McKinsey report has a timeline of May because the time for reflection is limited. It is time for action and decisive policy initiatives. It is imperative that An Post is redesigned and restructured to take account of the current environment both at home and internationally. Mr. Pigot made the comment that we view this from the perspective of our consumer base. That is what attracts everybody's attention with respect to how it has an impact on our people, communities and society. The points Mr. Pigot made about the possibility of increasing tariffs for international outbound mail and the renegotiation of the bilateral agreement are important. In other words, the burden would be shared across all of the group's operations.