Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 1991

Vol. 409 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - An Post Viability Plan: Motion.

Mr. Currie

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, being strongly of the belief that the viability plan of An Post has social and economic implications which are unacceptable, would damage the social fabric of rural life, increase the isolation of individuals and disadvantaged groups in both urban and rural areas, would have unacceptable consequences for the range and standard of postal services in that it would in particular close down more than 500 post offices and downgrade 23 company offices in provincial towns, make 1,500 staff redundant and replace doorstep delivery with 200,000 roadside post boxes in urban and rural areas, demands that the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications use his powers under section 110 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, to instruct An Post to withdraw their viability plan and provide an alternative in compliance with the social and household requirements of the 1983 Act.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, and with the approval of the House, I would like to share my time with Deputies Flanagan, Bradford, Hogan and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Currie

We in this country deserve the highest European standards in all aspects of life, whether we live in an urban or rural environment. We are lucky in our quality of life which many of us take for granted and do not fully appreciate. "Far away fields are green" is an old adage and often it is only after a spell outside the country that we realize just how good life is at home.

A job is important, vitally important, but so also are communications and services which contribute to the quality of life. Availability of good education, a house, a car or a good public transport system, places of entertainment, the doctor and the hospital not too far away, low crime rate, multichannel TV, the phone, are all important.

The standard and range of postal services is also, of course, an important element of the quality of life. In many places the local post office is the focal point of the community, whether in urban or rural areas, and the services it provides are particularly important to the disadvantaged in society, the less well off, the social welfare recipient, the unemployed, the elderly, the lonely and women.

Of course, An Post have problems. Nothing said in this debate should attempt to obscure the reality or minimise the enormity of these problems. The viability plan spells it out.

An Post faces a serious financial crisis requiring immediate action if the company is to become financially viable, withstand the competitive pressures threatening its survival, and finance an investment programme without which business development and growth will be impossible to achieve.

The Minister speaking in this House on 7 February said:

An Post are suffering unsustainable financial losses and there is need for urgent action to restore the company to profitability. The crisis cannot be allowed to continue.

I agree. An Post are haemorrhaging almost daily. The problem must be tackled with urgency.

There are, however, unacceptable prices which I for one am not prepared to pay. I am not prepared to damage the social fabric of rural life. I am not prepared to threaten the quality of our life by a diminution of the range and standard of our postal services. I am not prepared to increase the isolation of individuals and disadvantaged groups in society by depriving them of a service which makes difficult conditions a bit more tolerable and reassuring. I am not prepared to see doorstep delivery replaced by roadside postboxes in both urban and rural areas where the security and confidentiality of the mail is suspect, where the boxes will be liable to vandalism and where the human face of An Post, so important to the old, the sick, the handicapped and the lonely, symbolised by the postman at the door step, will disappear. I am not prepared to tolerate that. I am not prepared to accept that 1,500 more should be thrown on the unemployment scrap heap to join the 254,000 already there — the largest number every in the history of the State, a cancer in our society and a monstrous indictment of those who are responsible for it and who uncaringly accept it and who refuse even to acknowledge it as a crisis.

There have to be, and there are, alternatives. For this reason — and, of course, the imminence of the local government elections — the Minister asked NESC to conduct a study: "of the socio-economic implications for rural communities of An Post's proposals for the closure of 550 sub-post offices and the provision of 200,000 roadside letter boxes, including an examination of alternative possibilities for increased revenue at the sub-post offices, hardship alleviating measures and other options." One may ask why they were asked to consider the implications of the provision of roadside post boxes for rural communities only. Was it to disguise the fact that the implications for many urban dwellers are almost certainly equally unacceptable?

The decision to refer two of the proposals to NESC is welcome, though those whose jobs are threatened and those whose promotions may be affected by the proposed downgrading in 48 company staffed offices, may wonder why they were not included. And as the attendance at the protest meetings organised by concerned bodies clearly illustrates a very large proportion of the population of those provincial towns affected are also asking why the effect on their economy, morale, standing and infrastructure are not also matters for investigation.

The Minister announced initially that NESC has been asked to do the study themselves and he confirmed that in his Dáil reply to me on 28 February. However, when asked again by me on 20 March to state the terms of reference he had given to NESC, the Minister was economical with the truth. He failed to disclose that NESC had refused to carry out the study. The council said that the study was not the sort of thing the council did or were equipped to do. Their role was to deal with principles and they were prepared to help on that level.

Implicit in the decision of NESC to "decline the invitation" was their refusal to be used by the Minister to carry the can for unpopular decisions and to postpone such decisions until after the local government elections.

The Minister, of course, did not disclose any of this to the Dáil at the time, concentrating instead on the principles and the willingness of NESC to co-operate. We know the truth only because a spokesman for NESC disclosed it to the media. The principles which NESC propose as applicable to the study to be carried out by consultants are important. The principle of transparency requiring the separate identification of the commercial and social functions of An Post with the financial cost of pursuing the relevant social objectives explicitly identified in the accounts is crucial. The council apparently have also recommended that current public expenditure should not increase in real terms in the period up to 1993. Therefore if a case is made for subsidisation of social objectives the cost of such subsidies will have to be met within those current expenditure restraints. The recommendation relates to co-ordinated planning of rural development and the giving of a high priority to the provision of appropriate communication facilities and social services geared to the needs of people living in remote areas.

The principles outlined by NESC and the drawing up of an alternative plan in compliance with the social and household requirements of the 1983 Act are compatible. An Post can be efficient and solvent and fulfil its social obligations, but to do so: the network must be maintained and the strategic location of post offices improved; the offices must have a full range of new and improved services; and computerisation is essential.

Discussions between An Post and the Department of Social Welfare on the development of An Post's counter services to offer a more flexible and extensive range of payment facilities to all social welfare clients should be encouraged. Advantage should be taken of the Department's willingness to invest jointly with An Post in the automation of its counter services. Overtures from Telecom Éireann to involve themselves in this field should be repulsed.

Last year the Department of Finance paid agency fees of £12.6 million to An Post. Further business between the National Treasury Development Agency and An Post should be encouraged. An Post should investigate obtaining business currently being transacted by building societies. Computerisation would enable An Post to provide such services as motor taxation, driving licences, ESB payments, services for other semi-State and local authorities, etc.

To gain maximum advantage of the new opportunities offered will require, of course, the closest co-operation of management and staff. There should be no excuse for inefficiency and antiquated working methods and practices, for recent levels of unacceptable overtime payments nor for a situation where, according to the Consumer Association of Ireland, our postal service is one of the most expensive and slowest in Europe. According to those figures it is the third most expensive in 13 countries surveyed and also the third slowest.

Since my original motion was tabled and the Minister's initial rejection of the proposal that he should use his powers under section 110 of the 1983 Act, he has responded to the pressure that the social and household requirements of that Act be taken into consideration. He deserves credit for that. Many times since he inherited the Communications portfolio from his precedessor, Deputy Burke, he must have wondered about this inheritance.

After all, it was his predecessor who instructed An Post in the early part of 1990 to tackle all the problems of the single comprehensive package. It was he who told An Post to ignore the social implications. It was his predecessor who allowed the proposals for restructuring of An Post to lie in his Department from November 1990 until the present Minister took over in February last. The same Minister, Deputy Burke, bequeathed to the present Minister proposals for the time-charging of telephone calls and a broadcasting Act now clearly coming apart at the seams. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I have some sympathy for the Minister — but only some. He was after all a member of the Government responsible for these decisions. He sat in Cabinet when these decisions were being taken.

It was this Minister who said in the House on 28 February, within days of his realisation of the enormity of the hot potato he has been bequeathed, "I have indicated to NESC I wish to have the study completed, if possible, within six months"— well on the other side of the local government elections. I am not cynical by nature but I have learned a thing or two since my election to this House. Good news has a habit of being facilitated but bad news delayed in the run-up to elections.

I will listen to the Minister and Fianna Fáil backbenchers with more than usual interest in this debate. There is an issue of credibility involved. Many Fianna Fáil Deputies have opposed proposals in the viability plan in the most trenchant terms at local meetings, at council meetings and in the local press. Now is the testing time for their sincerity.

This motion provides the opportunity for the cynics as well as the idealists to ensure that proposals which are socially, economically and politically unacceptable will not be implemented. I have pleasure in moving the motion.

Mr. Flanagan

The viability plan proposed by An Post will be detrimental to the entire social fabric of rural Ireland. The high-handed and arrogant manner in which the proposals were put forward leaves a lot to be desired. Over the past couple of years many sub-post offices in rural Ireland have already been closed at the stoke of a pen and the lack of notice to those running the offices, together with a refusal on the part of both An Post and the responsibile Minister to meet deputations from local communities, underlines a clear lack of commitment on the part of the Government towards the welfare of rural Ireland.

This plan represents a dangerous policy when placed in the overall context of State respect for rural areas. The closure of rural post offices is even more horrific when set against the sad background of a general withdrawal of services in rural Ireland. The management of An Post clearly do not recognise the importance of the post office. The post office is often the only State office servicing the rural community as a form of information centre. The action by An Post indicates that most post offices in villages in rural Ireland are on the agenda for the chop. We in Fine Gael are totally opposed to an emerging pattern of blanket closures throughout the country in a cavalier and high-handed manner. It is important to remember that there is a difference between the closures of banks, building societies and their sub-offices in towns and villages throughout Ireland and the closure of a post office.

The post office is a state institution in an area, and An Post should not be allowed to discontinue operating offices in rural areas simply because such an office may not be returning a handsome profit. Social Welfare recipients, the old, the disadvantaged, those living alone are those who are going to lose in this callous shake-up. The installation of a security-questionable green box at the end of a country lane is no substitute for the role and function carried out above and beyond the call of duty by the village postman for generations.

Rural areas all over the country are being denuded of people. There are no jobs to hold the youth at home and public services have decreased instead of improved over the past number of years. Villages and small towns have lost their Garda stations, schools, bus service, banks and railway stations; now they are to lose the post office and postal services overnight. At the same time we are hearing, on an almost weekly basis, commitments on the part of Government and various Ministers to breathe new life into rural Ireland, but there is absolutely nothing to show in terms of progress on the ground. Bandied about fancy phrases such as "integrated rural development" funded in the main from the European Community will be meaningless if the heart and soul is to be pulled out of rural Ireland in the name of "rationalisation" and "technological development". The Minister and the Government must take particular note of the fact that social considerations far outweigh the economic argument.

In the past, in the Dáil, when addressing the closure of individual post offices, the Minister for Social Welfare, Dr. Michael Woods, pointed to the introduction of computerised facilities which would develop more modern methods of payment of social welfare benefits such as direct transfer by electronic means into bank or post office accounts. I ask the Government, what advantage will these ultra modern technological facilities be to the people of rural Ireland to whom the post office and the postal service represent an important institution. The logic of Government policy to date indicates that there is no place in modern Ireland for the rural post office. If this is the case the death knell has already tolled for life beyond Newlands Cross. I urge all sides of the House to support this motion.

Mr. Bradford

Forgive me for being repetitive but the feelings which I will express have to be quite similar to the feelings of all my colleagues and indeed all Members of Dáil Éireann. That fact that tens of thousands of people have packed halls throughout our country to express their total opposition to the viability plan of An Post speaks for itself. Those hundreds of thousands of people who have signed a public petition calling on the plan to be withdrawn and calling on the Minister to ensure its withdrawal also speaks volumes. I sincerely hope that the Minister, his colleagues in Government and, more important, his colleagues on the Fianna Fáil backbenches will take note of that.

The first issue I must mention is the question of the 1,500 jobs. Adding 1,500 more to the dole queues at a time of unprecedented unemployment is entirely unacceptable. The Taoiseach and the Government continue to claim that there is no unemployment crisis. I was amazed to hear the Taoiseach say again yesterday that a crisis did not exist. Unfortunately, the hundreds of thousands of people whose only weekly income is a social welfare cheque know differently. We in this House must ensure that 1,500 people will not be added to that dole queue.

The Government's Programme for Economic and Social Progress mentions the need to develop and retain life in rural Ireland. It also mentions the need to ensure that the State sector is increasingly used as a mechanism for job creation. It is ironic that both of these aspirations fly totally in the face of An Post's viability plan. With that in mind the Minister should not need any consultant's report or the report of any group such as NESC to know that the viability plan should be cast aside. The people of Ireland are not waiting to hear what the Minister has to say in six months time. They want to hear him reject this plan tonight.

The other issue which concerns me has to be the closure of the 500 rural post offices and the decimation that would cause in rural Ireland. The rural post office is the heart beat of the rural community. If we take away the rural post office we will destroy life in many rural communities. The rural post office is more than a place where stamps are bought and sold. It is the centre of activity in many of our small communities. It is a meeting place, a social place and is of vital importance to the people in each and every small community in rural Ireland. It must be preserved and we in this House must seek its preservation.

The rural postman or postwoman is much more than the person who delivers a letter to the door. He or she is a friend and confidant to everybody. More important, to many people, they are is the only visitor in the day or, perhaps, in the week. They provide a necessary social service. We must stand by those people who perform their important tasks so diligently and with such dedication and who have done so down through the years. Coming from the constituency Cork-East, it would be very remiss of me if I did not mention a post office which, six months ago, nobody knew of but which everybody knows of now. I see the Minister smiling and I hope he will have good news for me. I refer to Bartlemy post office. The cause of Bartlemy is no longer a local issue, it is now a national cause. The people of that locality who on January last saw their post office shut down are now demanding that it be reopened. They are demanding that the Minister use the powers he has under the 1983 Act to make the decision to reopen that post office. It is no wonder that almost every candidate in the local elections in the Mallow electoral area, including members of the Minister's own party and, more significantly, including a member of the Minister's own parliamentary party, have publicly and in writing condemned the Minister's failure to meet with the people of Bartlemy to discuss the closure of their post office and, we hope, its reopening. On no less than 28 occasions the people of that area have made a direct request to the Minister to meet with him to discuss their own crisis. The Minister has refused to do so and I hope he will give me tonight an indication that he will do so. More important, I hope he will give me the news tonight that he will use the powers he has to reopen the post office of Bartlemy in my constituency.

Mr. Hogan

It is important to emphasise here this evening that the problems of An Post are not just rural ones. There are many post offices in urban areas that are also under threat from the viability plan. Many people in urban areas are very worried about the quality and efficiency of the service they will have as a result of this plan being implemented. There are many people working in rural and urban sub-post offices who are worried about their employment if this plan is sanctioned by the Minister.

The viability plan proposed by An Post, and agreed to date by Minister Brennan, is totally unacceptable to this side of the House. It is unacceptable for the reasons pointed out by previous speakers. Also it is a further example of the decimation of rural services by this Government particularly since 1989. We have seen the closure of Teagasc offices, the neglect of our county roads, the closure of Garda stations, and now the closure of post offices. How much more must the people of rural Ireland put up with from this Government?

The post office in rural areas is the single most important hub of communication for many people in isolated rural areas. It is the only means of contact for many people. It is the information centre which our colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, spoke so freely about particularly in relation to unemployment exchanges. For many old people in particular their way of getting information is when they draw the old age pension. For people collecting children's allowance it may be the only means of communication they have. It is essential to maintain a proper network of post offices. It is also essential for An Post to modernise itself to meet the challenges of other financial institutions and provide a wider range of services in order to improve its viability for the future. Nobody disputes that and we would welcome An Post making strides in that area.

The Minister for Communications pointed out on many occasions that no closures of post offices would take place until his consultants had reported. I regret to say that this is not the case as was proved recently in my constituency of County Kilkenny in relation to Woodsgift Post Office. That post office was closed just because the premises have been sold and An Post have failed to sanction an agency for those premises. Some people in that case will be six miles from the nearest post office and that is certainly something that must not be tolerated.

Will it be the same for other post offices in urban and rural areas after the local elections or will it be the same for other rural services in my own area like Coon, Lacken and Dunnamaggan, to name but a few? An Post can become more efficient. Every one of us knows that finance has always been found to provide essential services for semi-State companies. The best example of that is CIE. We have seen that service subsidised to the tune of over £100 million because it is providing a mainly urban service and the number of people who would cry out and vote against this Government in a local election if anything happened to that service would have to be seen to be believed. Similar services are essential in rural Ireland. The post office network is an essential service, must be maintained.

I am calling on the Minister here this evening not to be cynical about this motion but to come clean and tell everybody in this House and the people in rural and urban Ireland what his plan is following the local elections, so that tonight we will now this Government's plans and the people can decide in two weeks' time whether they are happy with the viability plan put forward by An Post.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Francis Ledwidge wrote of Thomas MacDonagh when he got a bit of rest between fighting:

He shall not hear the bittern cry

In the wild sky, where he is lain,

Nor voices of the sweeter birds

Above the wailing of the rain.

With apologies to Francis Ledwidge, in this modern age and in the present crisis facing rural Ireland he would have added:

Nor shall he know when post has come

To fill that green box at his gate,

Nor shall he hear the postman's knock

Such is indeed the rustic's fate.

That sums up much of what we are talking about tonight. I am talking about rural Ireland and life in Ireland where the postman and post office have served extremely well. If we want to delve into more poetry we could quote most of Goldsmith's The Deserted Village because in his time, 250 years ago, he saw the decline of life in Ireland. He said:

Ill fares the land to hast'ning ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates, and men

decay

But a bold peasantry, their country's

pride,

When once destroy'd, can never be

supplied.

Tonight we are talking about a decline, apart from the loss of 1,500 jobs at a time when we have, we hope, reached the pinnacle of unemployment. Fifteen hundred jobs mean a great deal to the people involved and it is a terrible slap in the face to so many people who have served the post office and the people so well to see their jobs wiped out as a way of solving a financial problem.

The fact that 500 post offices are targeted is indefensible. If it was a reasonable number I am sure a few post offices would not be missed or their closure cause a major crisis, but 500 is overdoing it. These post offices have served well and the Members who have already spoken have outlined what they have done. I have a great objection to these green monsters that are supposed to sprout up all over the countryside and in the city. If we are becoming aware of the environment, and the slogan is to grow green, this is standing green on its head, and whether it is balanced in city or country, it will do nothing for either the appearance or the efficiency of the place.

It has been said that people will be passing these green boxes several times a day, but it is not a service. How often do you come out in a rainstorm to see if the post has arrived? How often do you look into the box hoping your examination results have arrived? It depends on what you are waiting for. I suppose if you are waiting for bills the sooner the boxes go up the better because you can refuse to look into them, but if you are looking for news these boxes are as welcome, as some wit said, and as useful as a lighthouse in a bog. That makes them very efficient.

Mr. Creed

I thank my colleagues for allowing me to share their time. Over the past six months or so Government and Opposition Deputies alike have attended meetings throughout the country and we have seen politicians of all parties unite in their opposition to An Post's management plans. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of my colleagues across the Floor. They have stated on those occasions that they opposed these plans, but tomorrow at 8.30 p.m. will be the moment of truth. I hope they will be as true to their word then as they were when they vociferously campaigned to oppose this plan.

I approach this debate from two perspectives; first, the Article in the Constitution says we must cherish all children of the nation equally; and second, the legislation which established An Post put an onus on them to provide for their social obligations to the community. In those terms the proposal we are discussing tonight to dismantle much of the social service An Post offer is regrettable. It would be a very retrograde step to dismantle the postal services An Post provide when the EC Commission is at present discussing, admittedly at a very early stage, the possibility of finance being available to support the network An Post provide at present. It would be very sad if, two years down the road, we find money coming on stream which we cannot avail of because we have dismantled and withdrawn the very excellent service currently provided in rural areas.

A fundamental argument which surpasses the interests of An Post workers is the viability plan for rural Ireland. My fundamental belief that £1 of taxpayers' money from rural Ireland is as valuable to the Exchequer as £1 of Dublin 4 taxpayers' money. Because of that there is an onus on this Government to ensure that the 32p stamp delivers a letter to the doorstep of an individual in rural Ireland as it will continue to deliver that service to the resident in Dublin 4.

If we allow the An Post proposal to pass without making a stand we can say goodbye forever to a way of life which is unique in European terms where they are reaping the social consequences of urbanisation and urbanised population. We have something in rural Ireland and Irish community life that is unique in the European context and which we must preserve. The battleground of An Post is symptomatic of a broader battle that must be fought to save what is now unique in European terms and is recognised by the European Commission as unique. It would be very regrettable if, in the coming months, we were to dismantle a service and later find that had we been less hasty that service could have had EC support.

I commend the motion to the House.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. S. Brennan)

I propose to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Hillery if that is in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. a1:

"To delete all words after Dáil Éireann, and substitute "noting that

(a) at the initiative of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, talks are now in progress between management and unions about the future of An Post,

(b) the predicted losses of An Post in 1992 will, without corrective action, be £14 million, and accumulated losses by end 1992 will be £31 million,

(c) the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications has appointed consultants recommended by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) to carry out a socio-economic study of the implications for rural communities of An Post's proposals in regard to sub-post offices and roadside letter boxes and also to consider proposing new sources of business for sub-post offices,

(d) An Post has deferred implementation of its proposals to regrade some of its own post offices until the company has had full consultation with relevant bodies from the towns concerned and considered how their concerns may be accommodated within the company's requirement to become financially viable, and

(e) following a request from the Minister, the Board of An Post decided to rescind its decision to withdraw from the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme,

supports the Minister's efforts to have management and unions negotiate and agree proposals which will return the post office to at least break even as a matter of urgency.

Deputies are already aware of the financial problems being experienced by An Post and the proposals drawn up by the company to restore it to financial health. However, at this point, I would like to outline in some detail, the seriousness of the situation, as presented to me by the company.

An Post lost £3.6 million in 1989 and almost £10 million last year after modest profits in 1987 and 1988. The company's budget shows a loss of up to £7 million for this year and £14 million for 1992. Unless remedial measures are taken An Post's accumulated losses by end 1992 will be £31 million. The main reasons for An Post's problems are increasing operational costs, particularly staffing costs, low mail volume growth and competition from modern telecommunications services and couriers. Pay costs alone account now for almost 80 per cent of An Post's total costs. An Post's costs increased by 16.7 per cent compared with an increase of only 10.3 per cent in revenue in the period 1987-90. A 6 per cent pay increase has been awarded under the conciliation and arbitration scheme which would cost An Post a total of £7.5 million in a full year.

An Post has considered this difficult situation in great detail and has put forward proposals to address the situation with the objective of returning the company to financial health. The programme which the company announced has the target of achieving £24 million savings by 1995. The proposals drawn up by the company cover a wide range of issues. The details of the proposals are well documented at this stage and as the proposals are now the subject of discussion between An Post and the unions I do not propose to comment in detail.

I think it would be useful if I set out for the House the initiatives which I have taken since these proposals were published.

I had detailed discussions with An Post about their recovery proposals. I was concerned about the impact of An Post's proposals on sub-post offices and roadside letterboxes on the aged, infirm and people living alone and I appointed NESC-recommended consultants to carry out a study on my behalf. They have also been asked to consider proposing new sources of business for sub-post offices. I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government agreeing to the unwarranted dismantling of the postal network.

In addition, I know that there has been concern at local level about An Post's proposal to regrade some 50 of its post offices. The position is that An Post have deferred implementation of this proposal until full consultation has taken place with local interests from the towns involved and considered how their concerns may be accommodated within the company's requirement to become financially viable.

I have devoted considerable time and effort in preparing the ground for An Post-union negotiations. I met the various unions representing An Post's staff and following rather protracted discussions involving the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, a formula for management-union negotiations was agreed. At my request An Post decided to rescind their decision to withdraw from the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

The result of all these efforts is that management-union negotiations have recently commenced. I appeal to both sides to get involved in real constructive dialogue and to refrain from action that would further damage the future of the post office. As the House is aware, we have well-tried and tested industrial relations machinery and the fullest use should be made of that machinery to process this problem to a speedy solution. Disruption of services will serve nobody's interest. In particular — I know Members will be pleased to hear this — I should tell the House that An Post have now informed me that it is their clear objective that job reductions will be of a voluntary nature.

I will turn now to the Fine Gael motion. It demands a level of service but unfortunately gives absolutely no indication as to how the cost of these services are to be met. It is simply a list of demands with no price tag. It is, of course, always open to Oppositions to put down motions supporting additional spending and easy options. It is particularly tempting for them to do this at election times. I had hoped that those days were behind us all and that this kind of popularity seeking and financial irresponsibility would have given way to constructive proposals from the Opposition.

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister should look at his own back benches. He should look at his own side and what is being said at local level.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

Mr. S. Brennan

I would appeal to Fine Gael, particularly to Deputy Austin Currie for whom I have considerable respect, rather than take this old-fashioned approach, to join with me in expressing support of this House for the current talks and the resolution of this dispute by the use of industrial relations machinery.

Mr. Currie

The Minister is following me in saying that.

Mr. S. Brennan

The amendment from The Workers' Party calling for additional capital investment requires brief comment. Over the past five years £43 million has been invested by An Post and it is proposed to invest a further £64 million over the next five years. I accept that An Post could do with even further capital investment and I will give every assistance practicable to an Post in this area.

However, additional capital investment means, among other things, more automation. More automation can have a consequent negative effect on employment in the post office. I wonder why The Workers' Party amendment did not follow through the logic of their proposal in this manner — could it be to do with elections?

Mr. Byrne

Our logic will be explained tomorrow night.

Mr. S. Brennan

Now let me outline to the House the up-to-date position regarding An Post. Talks have now commenced between unions and management on An Post's plan. Let me state quite clearly that the plan is a series of proposals. These proposals are not carved in stone. Any alternative proposals put forward by the trade union movement or anyone else will receive full consideration and can become part of the negotiation process. In fact, as I have said on many occasions — and I want to spell it out here again this evening — all proposals are negotiable provided that they have the objective of returning An Post to at least break even without State subsidy. This has to be the bottom line for all of us.

Suggestions that the EC will provide an instant magic solution are, I am afraid, very wide of the mark. The EC Green Paper on Postal Services is due to be published towards the end of the month. It will contain a range of suggestions, some of which may, in the long term, benefit An Post, particularly on the investment side. On the other hand, other suggestions in the that paper may have substantial negative effects on An Post, for example, proposals for increased competition. Realistically, therefore, An Post must find a solution to their problems by operating on factors which they can control themselves, that is, a combination of revenue increases and cost reductions.

A programme of full consultation between representatives of the towns concerned and An Post about the company's regarding proposals is well under way. Already representatives of some ten towns have met the company and further groups will be met in the weeks ahead.

The consultants' report is proceeding speedily. They are already deeply involved in data collection. In addition, they have had detailed discussions with my Department, the Department of Social Welfare and An Post. A steering group, chaired by my Department is monitoring progress.

An Post have to gear themselves to cope with the challenges of the rapidly changing postal sector. They need a major capital investment programme. They must develop new products. They must address their cost base. They will need creativity and imagination. In particular they will need goodwill from management and unions to turn the Irish postal service around, and that is something we would all wish.

I am today, in this debate, urging both sides to set aside any hostile or confrontational approach. I have great respect, and always have had great respect, for the dedicated workforce of the Post Office. I know they will consider responding this evening to the plea from me to look at the issues in a spirit of goodwill and see how together we can negotiate a solution to the difficulty with the objective of bringing the Post Office back to break even. That is my objective and I know it is the objective of the workforce for whom I have a very deep respect.

An Post cannot afford to enter a period of disruption of services, which would have a devastating impact on the consumer and on business. Any disruption now would be a devastating blow for business which is struggling to create more employment. All the industrial relations machinery of the State is available so that both sides can continue dialogue and find an agreed solution which will secure the long term viability of the postal service.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am one of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers to whom Deputy Currie referred as having trenchantly opposed the proposals to close 550 sub-post offices and to erect 200,000 post boxes in rural areas. I was trenchantly opposed to that proposal several months ago, and I can assure Deputy Currie, through the Chair, that I am as trenchantly opposed to it tonight as I was then. There was not a whimper from the Opposition benches about the viability plan when it was first published. The Fianna Fáil backbenchers about whom Deputy Currie spoke were the first people to declare their deep concern about it.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Only to the television cameras.

Mr. O'Donoghue

It is absolutely true to say that the same Fianna Fáil backbenchers about whom Deputy Currie spoke were the first people to oppose those parts of the plan which would adversely affect rural Ireland.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Donoghue

It should also be said that we did not hear a whimper during that period from the Opposition benches——

Mr. Currie

That is not true.

Mr. O'Donoghue

However, now that the local elections are nigh, lo and behold, Fine Gael have put a motion before the House and Deputy Currie has invited the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who so trenchantly opposed the plan from the outset to support their motion.

Mr. Flanagan

It has been on the Order Paper for sometime.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Neither he nor his party should expect us to join with them at this time or at any other time in this piece of cheap political propaganda.

Mr. Flanagan

The people of Kerry will thank the Deputy for that.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The truth is that we have trenchantly opposed the plan and will continue to do so.

I want to refer to a further historic truth which has to be addressed. Unfortunately this relates to the management of An Post. It is an absolutely true and hard economic fact that An Post have failed over the years to adapt to changing circumstances, changing times and changing demands. They failed to computerise, to market their products adequately, to diversify into a demand-led marketplace or to utilise their 1,900 or so outlets, four more than their closest competitors, the commercial banks and the building societies.

While that, of course, is history, the overtime bill of An Post which is in excess of £21 million per annum, the vast majority of which is in the Dublin region, is not history. I respect the right of every individual in the workforce to seek to take home as much as he possibly can to his family, but I also believe in equality and fair treatment for all. At a time when their overtime bill was running at £21 million per annum, the management of An Post came up with the idea to close 550 sub-post offices which would save a meagre £2.1 million, regrade district offices which would save £3 million and erect letter boxes at a cost of £6.7 million. However, the plan failed to address the positive aspects of how An Post could expand their role in Irish society for their own economic gain. I am sorry to have to say that An Post choose instead to tear the heart out of rural Ireland, to rob provincial towns of their focal point and in the process take the pride away from many provincial towns. This attempt to reduce the level of service in provincial towns and rural Ireland is being done at a time when the Minister for Agriculture and Food is attempting to introduce an innovative rural development programme. I could not tolerate such a proposal by An Post.

It is also fair to say that there is a niche for An Post in the marketplace. An Post could diversify into areas such as motor taxation, driving licences, parking fines, driving tests, certain payments for semi-State companies, tourist information and payment of ESB bills. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that An Post singularly failed to put forward even one decent, concrete positive proposal in their viability plan which would address the problems they are facing. An Post are facing problems. They have to be brought into the 21st century but, unfortunately, over the past number of years An Post have not addressed the problems of the 20th century.

There is a need for a single automated exchange. If An Post do not go down this road then other companies in the private sector will continue to grow at the expense of An Post. It is time An Post took on the private couriers on level terms and went into the marketplace with them to find out why they are failing while other companies have succeeded. Mail traffic for An Post only grew by 1.5 per cent per annum from 1987-90. While technological factors such as fax machines may have accounted for a certain amount of this, it is absolutely true to say that private couriers have continued to bite away at An Post's business and their natural marketplace.

Mr. Byrne

Many of them use slave labour.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Fine Gael motion before the House this evening is extremely strong in aspiration but extremely weak in inspiration. It appears from this motion that there is no solution to this problem. I am glad the Minister has referred this matter to the NESC and initiated talks between the union and management.

Mr. Creed

They threw it back at him.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

The Deputy is posturing.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I have absolute and utter confidence in the Minister's ability to resolve this matter in the best interests of An Post and the people. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the Minister to engage in political gimmickry and tell the nation that sub-post offices will not be closed and no letter boxes will be erected. I believe this is what will happen in any event. In addressing the social problem which has to be resolved — sub-offices must not be closed, district offices must not be downgraded and letter boxes must not be erected — the Minister is obliged to try to save An Post for the benefit of the Irish people.

Mr. Creed

Then vote in favour of our motion tomorrow night.

Mr. Byrne

What about the 1,500 jobs?

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Minister has made every effort to do this and will continue to do so. We are all opposed to the erection of letter boxes and last Saturday night we had the spectacle of Deputy Austin Currie being interviewed on a television programme about this subject. Subsequent to that we had the spectacle of an individual showing people how a letter box could be interfered with. I am sure many people would agree that this could be described as incitement to crime.

Mr. Currie

For God's sake.

Mr. Creed

Get off the stage.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I do not believe it was proper for Deputy Currie to appear on such a programme and I call on Fine Gael to disassociate themselves from any measure which would in any way encourage young people to commit such a crime. Fine Gael have a duty to do this.

Mr. Creed

Get off the stage.

Mr. Flanagan

The classic red herring.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Fine Gael have used this motion to stir up fears among people in rural Ireland and as propaganda of their campaign for the local elections. They have used this motion for their own ends and have failed to address the problems of An Post.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy is not doing too badly himself.

Mr. O'Donoghue

We know what the people of rural Ireland want. The Fianna Fáil backbenchers were the first people to oppose the plan. We will satisfy the demands of the people of rural Ireland and we need no beckoning from Fine Gael to do so, and never did.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Donoghue

We are not going to engage in propaganda in relation to this matter. The problem will be resolved without Fine Gael, just as the problem was first addressed without them.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Flanagan

Classic ambivalence.

Mr. Hillery

The first day of January 1984 was a day of fundamental change for An Post in that the postal service which was part of a Government Department in a sheltered context assumed the status of a commercial semi-State body. In other words, from being a service industry, a non-market organisation, where efficiency and profit were subordinate considerations, it faced overnight, as it were, the hard commercial realities of being a semi-State body. That change required change in turn — change in developing new business and change in being more cost conscious. Despite their present very serious financial problems on the positive side, An Post continue to be a valuable national asset. Its network is unique in the country in terms of its spread and its contact with the people. As we speak serious financial problems are dominant. Basically An Post have failed to live up to the hopes placed in them and have failed to grow to meet the demands of their commercial mandate. The company therefore now need reform and renewal, and it is entirely reasonable that they be reviewed from top to bottom.

Change is necessary and, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, both management and unions recognise this. I, as a member of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored bodies to which the parties gave evidence, know well there is an open attitude to change from both sides. From the Government viewpoint, as the Minister pointed out, there is no question of an unwarranted dismantling of An Post. The Government have no intention of making a quick, short term, rash jump at the problems of An Post. Indeed the Minister's record is there to be seen. He has invested a huge amount of time and skill——

Mr. Creed

What about money.

Dr. Hillery

——in facilitating progress between the parties. He has restored, by this instruction, the conciliation scheme in An Post. This has been very important machinery over many decades both in the Post Office and elsewhere. It has proved to be resilient, effective and orderly. It places a joint responsibility on management and worker representatives to work out solutions to their problems. In other words, responsibility rests where it properly belongs, with the key stakeholders who have most to gain and indeed most to lose. The challenge facing them — they have succeeded many times in doing so jointly — is to find workable and lasting solutions to their problems.

I see no problem with the appointment of consultants in relation to the sub-post offices or indeed with the breathing space that has been given for the regrading of head and district post offices. Indeed I look forward very much to the proposals of the consultants in relation to new business. This is where management seem to have failed in particular, in not having enough business to ensure the growth of the organisation and to secure their future adequately. The record in that respect is particularly disappointing. The proposals of a detached group such as the consultants, in terms of ideas for new business, should be studied very carefully by all concerned.

More change is clearly necessary. The problems are of such gravity that change must be addressed. Automation is a requirement in organisations across the board. There has been a dramatic change in organisational life, particularly in the commercial sector, over the last ten years. Not alone is automation necessary to address the problems facing the company but also to prevent further decline and the loss of more jobs. The harsh commercial reality is that there is no room in the nineties for out-dated structures and attitudes, be they management, union or worker attitudes. There is systematic institutional overtime in An Post and there are restrictive practices. There is an urgent need to modernise, to meet the needs of customers in the first instance and, as I have said, to prevent further decline in the company.

Competition is here to stay. An Post are feeling the cold winds of competition in various parts of their business. Only last week I read that the Commissioner for Competition at EC level referred to the possibility of further competition in postal services on the international front. Much play has been made of the proposals put forward by the company but these are only a set of proposals. It is not, as the Minister pointed out, a plan carved in stone. As somebody who has spent a good part of his life as an arbitrator in labour disputes and being close to industrial relations practice, I know that the very essence of industrial relations practice is flexibility: flexibility in discussions and eyeball to eyeball contact between the two sides. The right forum now exists to advance discussions towards a solution to the problems of An Post.

The Minister has made a direct contribution, as indeed have the Irish Congress of Trade Unions — I pay tribute to that body — in bringing the parties face to face so that they will engage as quickly as possible in constructive and substantial negotiations. That is the correct way to proceed. Dáil Éireann is not the place to solve the problems of An Post. The Minister has a facilitating role which he has played with success, but what is needed is face to face contact between the negotiators from both sides. They are the key stakeholders, as I have said, and they have most to gain or lose.

The management and trade union representatives, both experienced in inter-personal contact and in negotiations on pay and conditions, are now facing one another and should be left to do so. After all they have a common objective, they both want to see An Post back on the financial rails. They want the company to break even once again. That is in the interests of all concerned and it is obviously in the interest of this House because of the functional responsibility of the Minister as shareholder in the company.

In summary, the company have changed fundamentally from being a very protected organisation, as part of the Civil Service, that did not have to be concerned with profits and did not have to be cost-conscious in the way they need to be now. The company are a national asset. Obviously there is a commitment to see them return to financial viability. They need to grow, and I am sure I have the support of everybody in wishing them well in that regard. Changes are necessary. As the previous speaker pointed out, automation and computerisation have not advanced quickly enough, nor has the removal of restrictive practices been brought about quickly enough. The issue will not be solved by debate here. Therefore what is needed is an opportunity for the parties to be left to themselves, and that is now happening. The consultants' reports will clearly contribute valuable ideas, but it will take a certain amount of time to do that.

The historical position of An Post before they got their commercial mandate was that there was distrust and antagonism in the organisation. There were outdated management structures which needed to be changed and which aggravated inter-personal relationships between the two sides. The requirements of the commercial mandate mean that both parties have to address these problems. At the end of the day the primary responsibility for good industrial relations rests with management, but management alone cannot resolve the problem. Industrial relations together with pay and conditions are a joint responsibility, particularly in a unionised organisation. Therefore, there is a heavy responsibility on both sides to face some harsh decisions with a view to the longer-term security and commercial viability of the company.

Like previous speakers, I wish the company well. I deplore the fact that this matter should enter the political arena in an electoral context because that is quite unsuitable and irrelevant to the requirements of An Post. Both parties are sitting down together and we should let them bargain it out. Let us wish them well in reaching agreement and returning the company to financial health.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael D. Higgins and Deputy Seán Ryan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Boylan)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I would like to make one or two comments on Deputy Hillery's closing remarks, particularly as regards this matter being an election issue. Anybody who is familiar with this saga is well aware that this matter predated any announcement of local elections, and the record is there to be seen. I would also like to correct Deputy O'Donoghue's comment that it was the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who first raised this matter. I do not agree because I raised it with the Minister some time ago. Maybe the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was at a disadvantage in that he had just inherited that brief the previous day. It was quite a hot potato, but perhaps he had not familiarised himself with his brief——

Mr. Currie

Deputy O'Sullivan and I raised it on the very first day.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

That is right. Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about his concern for lawlessness outside this House but we should also be concerned about the giving of misleading information across the floor here. Certainly it is regrettable to hear the information given by Deputy O'Donoghue, who is a lawyer.

Mr. O'Donoghue

As far as I am aware, my information is correct.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Deputy O'Donoghue had his chance. He indicated his support in Waterford when several hundred of his constituents had him with his back to the wall. Then and only then did he offer his support.

Mr. O'Donoghue

That is untrue.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

It is a fact.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Donoghue, please.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I am sorry, but if the Deputy is talking about misleading information then he should cease.

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Sullivan is in possession and is entitled to address the House.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I welcome the motion. It is significant in many respects that the House has before it a motion that expresses concern at the downgrading of the postal services by virtue of the fact that An Post are trying to introduce a viability plan. There is another significance as well, inasmuch as I detect a definite shift in the ideology of the Fine Gael Party. Fine Gael are now calling on the Minister to intervene under section 110 of the Act. I welcome that development which is a departure from points put forward by their leader in recent weeks. Indeed, any effort to deal with the unemployment problem is to be welcomed. The call of Fine Gael for the State to intervene is very much welcomed by this side of the House.

I very much regret that neither the mover of the motion nor the Fianna Fáil Government indicated the way in which it was intended to deal with the amendment put forward by The Workers' Party. If the motion is to be successful then their amendment does need to be taken on board, because if sufficient funding is not provided there will be a repetition of what happened since 1983.

Mr. Currie

I want unity in this effort. You will not find me turning the knife.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Deputy Currie did not indicate in the House that he would accept the amendment. If we want unity, then the amendment should be taken on board.

Mr. Currie

It has not been moved yet.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Some indication should be given to lead us in a specific direction.

A plan that proposes to shed 1,500 jobs in An Post and close down 550 sub-post offices has to be taken against the background of the number of jobs already lost in An Post and the 250,000 people already unemployed. To date 1,100 jobs have been lost in An Post, but no mention has been made of that. Prior to the viability plan the numbers had been reduced by 1,100 and 49 new jobs were created and absorbed by the staff of An Post, for which nobody gave them credit.

Why is it necessary to introduce this viability plan? At meetings held between various parties and the chief executive, Mr. Hynes, he left us in no doubt that bad management decisions had been taken. Deputy Hillery and Deputy O'Donoghue say it is necessary to modernise An Post. It is not acceptable to have a management who make bad decisions and then use the staff as a safety net to extract themselves from the mess they have created. It is downright dishonest for An Post to suggest that while they accept they have made mistakes, the only way to solve their problems is to shed staff. Already there have been disastrous effects resulting from the shedding of staff in An Post, which I shall come back to later on.

The main problem arises from section 29 of the Act which proposes that a sum not exceeding £50 million would be available for capital works. To date, only £7 million has been paid to An Post. The Minister used another set of figures and he does this quite well. Nonetheless, An Post has been underfunded from the very beginning. I must confess to being part of a Government who introduced that legislation, but successive Governments have failed to provide sufficient funding for An Post. As a result, despite all the cutbacks in staff — and 1,100 is a considerable number to shed — An Post failed to become viable.

Added to that, An Post inherited an outdated fleet of vans, which cost quite a lot to replace. Most of the post office buildings throughout the country were in a dilapidated state. For instance, I worked in the post office in Cork in what was formerly a cold store: the main sorting office in Brian Boru Street in Cork was formerly a cold store.

Another factor was the introduction of Sheriff Street sorting office, which has been much criticised of late. The overtime worked by staff there has come under fire. The type of mechanisation introduced there actually helped to slow down the sorting of parcels, inasmuch as it was clapped-out machinery that was imported. In other words, from day one second-hand machinery was put into the new sorting office in Sheriff Street, and that helped in some measure to bring down the operation of An Post.

I note with interest that Deputy Currie and Government members said that An Post would have to expand, but they all stopped short of mentioning the banking system. The banking system is the only means of expansion included in the 1983 legislation. Under that Act if the Post Office, now An Post, were to expand it would be through involvement in banking, particularly in the Giro system. That begs a question: why have An Post been prevented from getting involved in that area? There is a reluctance on the part of the right wing parties to allow them get involved in banking. Do I take it that they do not want to offend their friends in the banking world?

If An Post is to survive, then it is absolutely essential that they be allowed to expand into the banking area. Mr. Tom Garvey, who was to be the chief executive of An Post but who subsequently went to Europe, had very definite plans as to how he would see it develop. He foresaw the provision of a computer terminal at each sub-post office throughout the country. That should have been done, and it could have been done at a very minimal cost. It was not done, and as a result An Post fell behind. Due to the growth of the credit union movement there is room for An Post to get involved with them by providing a banking service throughout the country. That is an issue that has not been investigated. Did the Minister put such ideas to the consultants as ways to make An Post viable without shedding staff and adding to the dole queues?

The most damaging factor to An Post is set out in a leaflet which is a special briefing to members of the An Post superannuation scheme. In three short years I shall be one of those beneficiaries and I shall be entitled to all these documents having served 30 years in An Post. Because the Minister did not accept the responsibility placed on him by the Act to fund pre-vesting date pensions, a debit of £126,284,000 has been imposed on An Post. The Minister was to take up the pensions of people who had left the service prior to vesting day but that did not happen. As a result, the amount due to An Post by the Minister in investment return to date is £54,484,000. If that kind of money had been available to An Post I have no doubt we would not now be discussing this so-called viability plan.

Already several Members have mentioned the effects of the viability plan on rural Ireland. It is worth noting that it will have disastrous effects and will put An Post at a disadvantage in competing with those mentioned by Deputy Hillery, namely, the private couriers. Does the House realise what an extension of the single post delivery service to all areas would mean? It means that if there were a single delivery here in Dublin and if one leaves Leinster House to post a letter late on a Thursday night after the post had gone, then the letter would not be collected until the following morning when the delivery for Dublin city was on its way. It is possible that a letter posted late on a Thursday night would not be received in the city of Dublin until the following Monday morning. The same position would apply in Cork, Waterford, Limerick, or any of the other main urban areas. This just cannot be tolerated. How long would they survive in competition against underpaid people who are not organised, who are being exploited by the couriers? In doing this the Government are cutting off another very important vein in the body of An Post. That is not on.

There is a proposal to reduce the size of the Post Office network to 1,500 offices. Deputies Bradford and Hogan did not mention closures in their own areas. I have no doubt that Deputy Wallace is familiar with the effect of the closure of Inniscarra Post Office. Inniscarra is located on the northern route between Cork and Macroom. The sub-post office there was closed down and as a result elderly people, pensioners, have to travel to either Blarney or Ballincollig and they do not have public transport available. I could go down through a litany of things here and make a powerful case but I promised to share my time with Deputy Michael Higgins. I have no doubt that he will say that we will support this motion and I hope that Fine Gael will take on board the amendment in the name of The Workers' Party.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is necessary at this stage to try to introduce a few simple definitions of language. What is being debated here, the so-called viability plan by An Post management to be visited upon people, is neither economic, viable nor is it a plan. As I listened to the speeches I noticed how some basics were slipping away. Deputy Hillery referred to the Minister as a shareholder, and he is. The Minister is only in a secondary way a shareholder under the Bill. In section 110 the Minister is the guarantor of the social provisions of the Bill and it is as a guarantor of the basis of the Bill that the Minister requires his authority. The Minister is not in here as a shareholder to be ranked with any others. That is why this matter belongs to this House.

When the Bill was being introduced it balanced certain aims very clearly. The Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, clearly made a contract with the public that certain services would remain intact. What is at stake? Management who have presided over from surplus to loss to increasing projected loss, who have given themselves rises in salary at the time that they have denied their obligations to pay arbitration awards to the people who are on the street delivering letters, produced a plan that is supposed to take the form of writ. Lest people think that I am a new convert to this cause, I had the privilege of speaking at the Communication Workers Union Conference when it was held earlier, before there was a smell of an election and before the suggestion could be made "don't worry, people of Ireland, Fianna Fáil backbenchers will see you right in the end, with a nod and a wink, and so on". The truth of the matter is that An Post management in their proposals do not meet their obligations under the Act. In relation to the nature of postal services within any policy of communications is the right to post a letter and avail of a postal service a discretionary citizen's right, or is it a commercial act or service? An Post are trying to tell us that the volume of mail which might emanate by way of commercial communication should be a criterion and should be so predominant in the thinking, that it would deny the right of a rural person to receive and send mail. It is a fundamental distortion of every postal obligation in every civilised country.

I am in favour of economic thinking and of viability, but absurdity broke out earlier today when I sat in this seat and heard that the economy was doing very well but that unemployment is likely to rise. I have often spoken here about the kind of economics where the economy is well but the people do badly. I have listened for years to people saying that we need a climate of investment, that we need a low inflation rate, that we need good facilities for investment and so forth and that after that will come all the jobs. Nobody wants to address the situation where the climate could not be better in terms of productivity levels, wage costs, low inflation, and aids to industry in this country of the same order as the expenditure on education, but that there are no jobs. At the end of the Minister's speech there is a mantra-esque kind of reference, or a little prayer which says that An Post cannot afford to enter a period of disruption of services with devastating impact on the consumer and on business that is striving to provide more employment. Would that it was. It is the consistent opposition to State activity in the economy that has produced the scandal of unemployment.

When An Post became a semi-State body, it is very interesting that their activities were not linked to other semi-State body activities. Why could not parts of Government Departments activity be given to An Post as future business. Who opposed the giving of banking services to An Post, that was considered so important that banking and bank giro are mentioned in section 87 of the Act specifically? It was the idealogues who said that anything that had ever had a whiff of being owned by the State or the public must not be allowed to compete with something that might have made a profit. The summary of what my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, said is very simple. If it had been given a chance——

A Deputy

Who was the Minister then?

Mr. M. Higgins

The Deputy will speak tomorrow, and he can be consistent tomorrow too and vote in favour of the resolution.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. Higgins

What Deputy O'Sullivan said was that if it had been given a chance, An Post could have been a very viable entity. Let us realise what is at stake in it. It is a very interesting question. If someone was taking over as chief executive of An Post, would it not be very valuable to say that the staff, instead of being an overtime problem, were a resource in the company? What has really excited the public mind is that they know what the post person does. It was possible anywhere other than in a poor law country for different social services to be provided by the people who are calling every day on the elderly. I will expound on that notion of the little box at the end of the lane. There are many elderly people waiting for home help. Will they get the home help to turn the key in the box to see if their basic entitlements are down at the end of the lane? That is a kind of anti-worker thinking, that at one stage has to say "we will not accept arbitration and conciliation, and we will go back to arbitration and conciliation when the Minister tells us" and then we are told as well, that every proposal is flexible. The An Post management statement of 6 February 1991 is fascinating. In issuing the plan, the company stated that their financial position was so serious that all the elements of the plan must be implemented without delay. Which is it? Deputy Hillery talked about flexibility being the basis of industrial relations. Trust is the basis of industrial relations. Which do An Post want — the document of February or the new flexibility which they are now adopting under pressure from the Minister? Deputy O'Donoghue said there was not one decent, concrete proposal; if there is not, Opposition Members should vote against it and then we can all start again with good industrial relations, proper economic planning and development of the postal services.

Debate adjourned.