Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been an extremely worthwhile meeting, with very interesting and worthwhile presentations.

This is a very sensitive and important issue for all of us. The people we represent are watching our performance, with reason. They value the postal service and the network of post offices highly. I do understand there has to be change but they value what exists and the universal services obligation. For them it is an extremely important service. That is why we are all sitting around late tonight and there is an earnestness about the meeting. This is not something casual or trivial. We, as politicians, are reluctant to approve price increases. We tend to do the popular thing if we can but it is interesting that across the political spectrum there is an acceptance that An Post needs the increase. I share that view but I also pay tribute to colleagues who are not of the Government party and who share that view. Not to engage in populism on an issue like this takes some political courage.

Mr. Parnell, Mr. Kerr and several others said they want to widen the services, get a greater range of financial services in, and make the post office more usable and attractive with more happening than traditionally and there are different types of post office to attract extra business and make them more relevant. I applaud that. While I know that Mr. Kerr is keeping that to a minimum but we at this end of the table do not want post offices to close. We want them to be open and successful. I am somewhat persuaded by the view of Deputy Lowry that there will be a need for a level of State subvention. We do not want unfettered, unchecked, uncontrolled and wasted State support but there will have to be a level of support and I would be in favour of that in order to preserve the universal social obligation and keep as many outlets open as possible.

All of us, including the Government, have mitigated against post offices by actively encouraging electronic social welfare payments. When I was a child, the collection of pensions and other social welfare payments at post offices involved a social dimension and that has been undone. It was a societal and cultural shift which I suppose had to happen.

I do not mean this in any patronising or silly way but I am very encouraged by Mr. McRedmond's vision and commitment. He has a great handle on this. I was going to ask about parcel post, which has not caught up yet. Intuitively, I think he is correct that parcels should become a big business because Internet sales are growing exponentially. I notice my children buying stuff via the Internet in a way that I would never have done. That is important and so are financial services and the current account dimension may help. The direct leaflet drop is also important for industry. It is good to hear Mr. McRedmond identify three positives that we could build on, as well as seeing the need for reform and change and that is healthy.

Mr. Pigot's contribution about the review of the international agreements was very interesting. It would be great if something was done about that. We should not be losing in that area if we can avoid it because we do not want a diminution of service or outlets.

I am impressed by the speed of action. We need to move fast when the McKinsey report comes out and it is good there is a date for that. The questions have been asked but this is so important that I make no apology for speaking. I wanted to put it on the line that the people I, as a Senator, represent in Cavan and Monaghan dearly value their post office network, want no reduction except where it is impossible to avoid and want a good universal service. I am encouraged that a real effort will be made to achieve that. If that needs a level of subvention then so be it as long as it is sensible and used properly.