I thank the Senator for withdrawing amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I can understand the feeling of a sense of equity because no doubt those who retired contributed in a major way to the build up of the company, but they have their pensions. It is right that they have them. The current employees gave up their pensions and an actuarial value was placed on their Civil Service pension. They will never receive it because they have given up their contribution to it.
Second, they borrowed £95 million, which will take between seven and ten years to pay back, so they cannot get any of the 9.9 per cent of the shares until they have paid it back. The pensioners did not borrow to purchase part of the 14.9 per cent. In addition, they have the pension, the annual bonus, etc.
The commercial arrangement was entered into and signed by Telecom Éireann and the trade union group. I cannot change that in any way, but last February I met the pensioners' group and I, like others here, was troubled about the sense of history, as it were. The advisers and the Depart ment of Finance and my Department are working on an arrangement whereby the current pensioners will be entitled as of right to purchase shares so that if the issue is over subscribed and people's shares are cut back or they do not get them, the pensioners right to purchase shares will not be curtailed by numbers, market forces or the fact that the previous shares have been purchased.
Senator Ross asked if we might revisit the valuation of the company as it appears to have increased considerably. I would also put the case of KPN-Telia. Although there is a clawback, they purchased at what would be seen now as highly favourable terms. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this matter.
I have no ideological hang-up about worker participation. I welcome worker participation in an enterprise as it means motivation and interest. I wish people would recognise that 14.9 per cent was not handed out – 9.9 per cent was purchased and 5 per cent was for change.
As the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is waiting to take over, I pay tribute to this House for facilitating such an interesting debate. Giving people the chance to purchase share incentives is a huge issue. We have freely aired and debated the matter and made firm decisions. The debate was robust, interesting and related to the matter in hand. We are embarking on a big adventure, which is the first of many, not from an ideological point of view but from a practical one in the interests of competition and the consumer. We can no longer erect high walls around us.
Sean Lemass set up a factory in Athlone called General Textiles Limited to give people jobs in a highly protectionist environment. My father and mother, who was pregnant with me, and three children went to Athlone. For over 20 years 1,000 people were employed in the factory; we lived in a house in the middle of the factory – the hooters sounded every eight hours and everyone went to work. The work involved looms, bleaching, dyeing, finishing and spinning and provided good employment; it laid the basis for the industrial town Athlone is today. I grew up to the sound of hooters, playing among the looms, at one with the workers. The factory had high walls around it; it was a protected industry providing paid jobs.
However, tyrelene and synthetics arrived and cotton went out of fashion – if only it had lasted the pace because it is in fashion again. Seán Lemass began to take down the walls of protectionism and we learned a sharp lesson; one cannot live in a protected environment forever. I have experienced that and I can empathise with workers, with their concerns and their way of life. My father was a civil servant who was plucked from the Revenue Commissioners to go to Athlone; he never came back.
Protectionism does not work, which is why I introduced deregulation. It was a daft notion that telecommunications could be protected. However, it is difficult for people to move from a monopoly to a free market. It is difficult to change mind sets and to work with companies, workers, the market and the political reality and then combine all those with European directives, legislation, strategic partnership and possible privatisation. It is a monstrous task but I am not overawed.
I thank my officials who accompanied me here and in the other House. They have done tremendous work in this adventure – a good description by Senator O'Dowd which I will continue to use. A great deal more work remains to be done. I thank the Cathaoirleach and his colleagues for this good debate. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will come in now as I cannot talk from two places, no matter how bright I think I am.