Vol. 515 No. 4
13 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the response of the European Union to the case made that the contract to deliver social welfare payments should be put out to tender; if the contract with An Post which expired on 31 December 1999 will now be renewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6266/00]
The contract under which An Post provides the payments delivery service to my Department reached the end of its term on 31 December last. The Government had previously decided that the term of this contract should be extended for a further three years, namely, 2000 to 2002 inclusive.
Certain legal issues regarding the extension of the contract have been raised with the EU Commission by a third party which feels aggrieved by the Government's decision. In accordance with its usual practice in these matters, the Commission referred these complaints to my Department for its observations.
Responses to complaints, and the complex legal issues upon which they are based, have been sent to the Commission. I understand the Commission is currently examining the arguments advanced by the complainant and the obser vations supplied by my Department. As part of this process, the Commission has recently sought some additional clarification of the basis upon which the decision was made. This additional information is being compiled by my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise and will be supplied to the Commission as soon as possible. It follows that the Commission has not yet reached a definitive view of the merits of the arguments which have been advanced by the complainant in this matter.
The necessity to address and resolve the issues raised with the EU Commission has delayed the completion of a new three year contract with An Post. In the meantime, recognising that the payments delivery service which An Post provides to my Department's customers must continue without interruption, my Department and An Post have agreed that the company will continue to provide these services on an interim basis. The Commission has been notified accordingly.
I have already re-iterated the Government's commitment to maintain a network of post offices. While not wishing to pre-empt the outcome of the issues being considered by the EU Commission, I am confident that An Post will continue to have an important role in the delivery of services for my Department. Needless to say, the Government intends to fully comply with its EU obligations in this matter, once they have been definitively established.
Does the Minister accept he originally argued to have the contract put out to tender and that this is now putting the sub-post office network at risk? Does he agree that the arguments he used in 1998 to put the contract out to tender are being used against him and that this may be a fatal weakness in the case before the Commission? When was the objection lodged with the Commission and by whom? When was the response to it filed by his Department?
I deny that I argued one way or the other. The Government made a decision on this matter based on the legal advice it had received from the Attorney General on this issue. As I stated on previous occasions, this issue is a poisoned chalice which was passed to the Government because the previous Government, of which the Deputy was a member, passed the buck. It included a stipulation in the previous decision that the contract would be renewed for three years on condition that it would be put out to tender at the end of that period, which was 1999. The Government dealt with that provision on the basis of legal advice from the previous Attorney General and it has subsequently been confirmed by the current Attorney General that we are legally entitled to do that. He also obtained independent legal advice in this regard. The Government and I are entitled to do what we are doing and I categorically deny that I argued one way or the other. I stated the facts to the Government. At the end of the day, the Government made the decision and Deputy O'Keeffe, who comes from a rural area, should consider that to be a correct decision.
My concern relates to the rural sub-post office network which has been put at risk by the Minister. Does he deny that at a meeting in September 1998 he argued with the Minister for Public Enterprise that he was obliged to put the contract out to tender under EU procurement regulations and that in any event he wanted to save money, and that it was only after a political row that the Government made a U-turn prior to the elections? Does he accept he has put his present position at risk? Why did his Department participate in a recent trial electronic payments method in Ennis? Why was An Post not part of the trial? Is that not a further indication of the Minister's lack of faith in An Post and lack of concern for the rural sub-post office network?
An Post was requested to participate in that trial as was the Department. We were requested to become involved in the promotion of Ennis as an information age town and that was one of the initiatives that was adopted. An Post was invited but declined. The Deputy referred to an argument I made at a particular meeting but he seems to have changed his tune. He previously quoted what he stated was the minute of a meeting, but it was only a memorandum made available to me prior to the meeting.
That is now available to me under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997.
It did not necessarily state I made those arguments. It was a departmental memorandum, which set out the position at that time.
Is the Minister saying he did not make those points?
If the Deputy checks the record, he will discover that there was no meeting between myself and the Minister for Public Enterprise on that occasion.
What points did the Minister argue with the Minister for Public Enterprise?
On any occasion we met we discussed the issue of the renewal of the contract—
Is the Minister denying he made those points?
The Deputy and his colleagues in the previous Government passed the buck on this issue and there is documentary evidence, including a letter of procurement from the Government contracts committee, which high lights that the previous Government asked that the contract be put out to tender at the end of the three year period. That is a fact.
I must challenge the Minister on that. He did not deny that he made those points because he cannot.
