Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I was one of the lucky few who received a copy of his statement. It is quite light on detail and I can advise other Members not to scramble to obtain a copy.

I have some questions for the Minister. As he knows, I have a lot of regard for him. While he welcomed publication of the report of the joint committee, does he accept it or any of its specific recommendations? It is positive that he has welcomed the report, but I draw his attention to recommendation No. 5, namely, that the post office network be considered for use in paying other State charges such as motor tax, hospital charges, water charges, property tax, business rates and other such payments.

The Minister and many of his ministerial colleagues have consistently stated they fully support ensuring the post office network is sustainable.

That is certainly welcome, but what is the Government actually doing to ensure it happens? Most of the changes we have seen within the post office network in recent years were driven by private sector operators, particularly the banks, outsourcing some of their functions to the network. I fully appreciate the level of financial expenditure by the State in the area of social protection and the payments that go through the post office network. I am, however, trying to square the circle with regard to the plan outlined by the Minister for Social Protection whereby, by December 2017, only 3% of social welfare payments, as compared with the current figure of 50%, will be made by way of cash transactions. I accept the need for savings and the importance of security. However, if that plan is implemented, what will fill the gap in terms of the threat to the viability of the post office network? If it is done without the provision of support in the areas I mentioned, such as motor tax renewals, we will probably see an additional 400 post offices closing throughout the country. None of us wants that to happen.

This is an issue of particular concern in rural areas. We have already seen the closure, for example, of a large number of rural Garda stations and banks. We heard this week that Ulster Bank is to close between 38 and 41 of its branches in the State. Many rural people see the local post office almost as the last bastion of their communities. Post offices perform functions which banks simply do not. I commend An Post, both management and workers, on the level of service it provides to customers. It far exceeds the service provided by banks, which no longer want any customers coming through their doors. That is patently obvious to anybody who goes into a bank, where it is usual practice to have only one teller in place at any given time. It is important, therefore, that we support the post office network.

I am concerned at the canard thrown out by the Minister - one which previous Ministers in previous Governments also put forward - in regard to EU procurement rules. We in this country have followed those guidelines to the very letter of the law. We do not unbundle tenders as is done in France and other member states. A minimum of 17% of all State business goes abroad, and it is probably closer to 40% in practice. I worked on a report on this issue in the last Dáil, in my capacity as Vice Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts and in conjunction with the then Chairman, former Deputy Bernard Allen. I wholeheartedly agree that we must abide by EU procurement law. At the same time, however, we would do well to be a bit more clever in how we go about it. We might, for instance, consider unbundling tenders to allow An Post a better chance of winning them. I often point out in these discussions that the French police drive Citroens because, in doing so, they are supporting French business. Many of our fellow member states do not really give two hoots about EU procurement law. In fact, the average across the Union for overseas expenditure by states is some 2% of total spending. The closest to Ireland is Cyprus on 6%. That is an issue of concern to me.

The Minister referred in some detail to State savings, which are worth €17 billion. I agree with the points he made in this regard. I am concerned, however, that the changes the Government has made in terms of the interest paid on those savings will see a sizeable reduction in that book of business. A similar reduction in prize bonds sales is a likely consequence of the reduction in prize funds, another change the Government managed to slip under the radar.

The fundamental issue here is whether the Government has an actual plan for the post office network. The Minister referred to the Grant Thornton report commissioned by the Irish Postmasters Union and the report by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications. There has, however, been no plan from Government. The Minister must take a lead on this, in collaborations with his colleagues, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for Finance. We are all agreed that our post office network is vital; the challenge is to ensure it is sustainable. The committee has done a good job in its recommendations, but I would like to see the Minister being more specific in terms of the actions he intends to take on foot of those recommendations.

The Minister indicated that he has written to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform suggesting that the post office network is ideally placed to service a broader range of Government transactions. Will he elaborate on this suggestion? What, for example, is his definition of "more"? Did he ask his colleague to consider specific services such as motor tax renewals? That information would be very helpful. I thank the Minister for attending this debate and assure him of my intention to offer constructive engagement on this issue. We all want to ensure the viability of the post office network, but that requires a proper plan with which everybody can get on board.