Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Apr 1988

Vol. 379 No. 11

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - An Post Annual Report.

5.

asked the Minister for Communications whether, under section 33 (2) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 he has sought to have included in the annual report of An Post, information on the cost-effectiveness and speed of delivery of letter and parcel post; whether he has sought information from An Post regarding their method of surveying speed of delivery since their independent surveys; and whether he has sought information from the company on the target to be achieved during the course of their current corporate plan.

57.

asked the Minister for Communications whether, in the light of the annual report of An Post he will be seeking further information regarding cost-effectiveness or in relation to policy bearing on any of the company's activities.

I propose to take Question No. 5 and Priority Question No. 57 together.

The annual report of An Post is a comprehensive document which gives a wide range of information about their business and performance.

An Post employ the service of a market research company to conduct regular independent surveys of the effectiveness of the postal service. The results of these surveys are made available on request to my Department. The board of An Post are considering the advisability of incorporating performance targets in their corporate plan and of publishing the results of the surveys of the effectiveness of the postal system.

The company's annual report for 1986 indicated that An Post had delivered 90 per cent of letters on the working day after posting and that 80 per cent next-day delivery of parcels had been achieved. The 1987 annual report stated that implementation of productivity arrangements during the past year brought some teething problems, with the result that the improvement in service, achieved by An Post in recent years in some areas of its business was not fully maintained. The company are tackling the problems and are determined to raise standards still further.

On the basis of discussions between the Department of Communications and An Post, I am satisfied that the company are giving the highest priority to the provision of high service standards in their mail services. I will be seeking progress reports from the company from time to time.

As regards parcel mail, the improvement in quality of service achieved in 1986 was maintained in 1987 and an independent study reported 85 per cent next-day delivery for internal parcels.

In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to direct An Post to include specific information regarding cost-effectiveness in their annual report, pursuant to section 33 (2) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983. I will, however, keep the position under review in the light of the progress reports on service standards, the effects of the company's productivity scheme and material furnished in the company's corporate plan.

First, is it somewhat not in order to link a priority question with this specific question relating to speed of delivery of post? That is rather unfair of the Minister of State.

The Chair has no control over that matter.

I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle. In relation to speed of delivery, in view of the fact that this has deteriorated from last year to this year, would the Minister not reconsider his decision not to impose requirements that targets be set for the company? Is he satisfied with the fact that third parties who have carried out surveys of postal deliveries have found that the performance on postal delivery on the following day has deviated quite considerably from what is reported by An Post?

There is no way that I could say that I am satisfied with what would appear to be a deterioration in the service. Obviously, the progress which had been made in the first two years after the establishment of An Post in relation to this aspect of their affairs has not been maintained. There is some public disquiet about that. On the question of insisting on targets, very often this and various Governments are accused of interfering too much in the day-to-day operations of companies and that the companies would require greater flexibility to adapt to new situations. That is the best course of action. I am extremely conscious of the public disquiet in this area and very anxious to ensure that satisfactory progress is made at the very earliest possible time.

Since the Minister has abolished the users' council, he is the sole overseer of the consumers' interests in this area. Does what he has said in eloquent terms not amount to saying that he is not going to do anything about this problem? At the very minimum, he should require quarterly reporting from the board on the speed of delivery of different items and independent, noncommissioned studies of speed of delivery?

I have already indicated that I am concerned. We have had contact with the board in this regard and intend to keep the matter under strict review.

In view of this deterioration, which is evident to anybody who uses the postal services on a frequent basis, would the Minister not seek from the board monthly reports until they get back to their objective of having at least 95 per cent of letters delivered the next day?

We can certainly consider that proposition, or perhaps others asking for not as frequent as monthly reporting. One way or other, I hope the concern of Deputies will be allayed very soon when we see an improvement in this area.

With regard to performance in the semi-State and State sector over the past five or six years, there has been a very profound improvement. Almost all of these companies are now profit-making instead of loss-making. The level of the service has been monitored by the Departments under the regime of the previous Government. Would the Minister not accept that one of those innovations was that where there was a deviation from target, whether at service level or in profits, the Government would seek more frequent reports and take corrective action in order to see that the targets were reached? This would ensure that we do not have the mess that we had in 1982.

I indicated already the difficulties sometimes imposed on any organisation where constant demands for reports have become more important than the actual delivery of the service. This should be appreciated by the Deputy, as a former Minister. I do not want to create that kind of situation. I am, however, conscious of the deterioration to which I have referred and many of the Deputies are also concerned about this. It arose mainly out of the new system's productivity arrangements which produced many teething problems. The time for solving those problems is long since over and the indications are that they are over and the progress can be made in this area. I am prepared to review the situation as quickly as possible but not to set an agenda of continuous interference in day-to-day operations which could only exacerbate the very problems that we are trying to solve.

It is not day-to-day operation. The Minister does not understand the position.

A final supplementary, please, from Deputy Bruton.

I would ask the Chair to bear in mind that this is my priority question. Is the Minister of State satisfied with the situation that postal charges here are currently 25 per cent dearer than in the EC? Is he further satisfied that there has been no commitment from An Post to do anything about correcting that beyond the end of 1988? Would he set for that company a target of moving to average European charges within a reasonable period?

It is extremely difficult to make exact comparisons between this country and other European countries. There is no argument about the fact that our postal services are considerably dearer. We have a low density population and a wide dispersal of those services around the country. If we had a higher population some of those problems would be solved. There has been no increase in these services since 1986 and we want to see a continual downward trend in this aspect of the services. It may not be possible to compete on a cost comparative basis with the European mainland but it is fair to say that the cost of our services is still too high.

May I take it——

Order, please. As it is now 3 o'clock I am obliged in accordance with Standing Orders to proceed to questions addressed to the Minister for Energy.

It is my Priority Question.

I appreciate that and I have allowed a lot of latitude on it. If the Deputy is dissatisfied he has a way out.

Top
Share