Austin Currie
Ceist:11 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications when proposals for the restructuring of An Post were received in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Restructuring of An Post.
The then Department of Communications received outline particulars of An Post's proposed viability plan from the company's management on 26 November 1990. The plan, as formally approved by An Post's board, was received on 6 February 1991, on which day An Post published their plan.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I would jog his memory to the extent that as far back as April 1990 people in An Post were talking about haemorrhaging in relation to their financial position. In February 1991 when the viability plan came out, phrases such as "serious financial crisis" and "requiring immediate action" were used. I would remind the Minister that when, on the day after his appointment, he referred in this House to the matter, he talked about unsustainable financial losses requiring urgent action and said this crisis could not be allowed continue. I would also remind him that in reply to a Dáil question from me on 22 February last he said there would be an NESC study within a period of six months. Will the Minister tell us why there has been a change of mind? Why, since words such as "urgent attention", "haemorrhaging,""crisis" and "urgency" were being used at that time, did the Minister suddenly find that the matter was not quite so urgent after all and that decisions could be left over——
There is a tendency to ask very long questions and to quote.
——until six months later?
I repeat that the matter is still urgent, and I stand over my statement in the House on that day. The crisis cannot be allowed continue. There is a serious financial situation in An Post and it is urgent. In reply to another part of the Deputy's question, the two matters I have referred to NESC are matters which in my view do not account for a substantial proportion of the financial situation. I would be happy at some stage to outline to the Deputy the sums if he so wishes. Urgent negotiations will take place between the unions and the management on the other major issues such as the position in the city and the whole position in regard to pay, which is the nub of the problem in many ways. I think we were wise to refer these matters to NESC.
If the matter is so urgent, as the Minister again repeated, how can we delay a further six months without taking decisions on it? Will the Minister come clean and admit that the real reason for this delay is the imminence of the local government elections? Backbenchers particularly in the Minister's party refuse to face the electorate in view of the proposals that have been made? Surely this is a matter of political expediency and of refusing to look the truth in the face?
Why then did the Deputy put down a motion to me for answer in the House calling on me not to proceed with the plan?
Question No. 12, please.
I called on the Minister not to proceed with the plan, I did not tell him he should not give decisions until after the local government elections. When they are over the people will find out——
I have called Question No. 12.
The people will not be fooled.