Mr. Tom O'Callaghan:

First, the question we all need to ask ourselves is: why are we here? We do not wish to see the ruination of small villages and towns throughout the countryside. I also believe that we care about people. To respond to Deputy Dooley, I have heard many people ask what we can do to maintain the network. I take the Deputy's point and I also accept the point that small offices are closing, but I am sick to death of getting a sticking plaster to maintain a network. We must examine this from the top down. It is very simple, like a car. One puts a certain amount of petrol in the car to get to one's destination and back. Currently, the post office needs €78 million, effectively, to maintain itself. We have an opportunity here to consider how to address that.

Deputy Kenny is absolutely correct that the Government has attacked its national asset. Grant Thornton clearly stated in 2014 that if we do not maintain Government contracts to the value of €60 million there will be drastic consequences, effectively shutting it down. That was ignored. We now know there are major problems so how do we resolve them and move forward? My colleague, Gerry Duddy, will discuss what it costs. An Post has done this previously. We should be under no illusion about that. It created a bank in 2010 to 2012 for quite a modest sum with a partner. What we are saying is very simple if we want the network to survive on a social economic basis. We have to think of the people as well. People in every village and town are upset because they are terrified of the post office closing. We must find a solution. Part of that is New Zealand. The reason New Zealand has been highlighted, as against the Sparkessen mentioned by Deputy Eamon Ryan, is that the post offices are interlinked. The branch network is already set up. At the turn of a switch a business proposal can be rolled out through the network to every village in Ireland. It can go to Ventry or to the GPO in Dublin. That is the reason we favour the Kiwi model for the post office network.

Deputy Smith referred to the €170 million. It was an absolute insult to the public to hear that there was more concern that it was going to cost €170 million when billions of euro were paid to the pillar banks. This is being used as an opportunity to stop a challenge to the pillar banks, one that will be of benefit. The difference in what we are proposing is that the profits go back to the small communities rather than to the shareholders. That could be the fundamental reason we are having difficulty.