I have had a number of Private Notice Questions on the same subject matter, that is the dispute in the postal services. I will call the Deputies in the order the questions were submitted to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - An Post Dispute.
asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if, in view of the likely impact on the economy of a dispute in the postal services and the hardship and inconvenience caused to the general public, she will outline the steps, if any, she will be taking to avert a disruption of postal services.
asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if, in view of the suspension by An Post of more than 400 workers and managers and the consequent disruption of postal services, she will outline the steps, if any, which are planned to help find a solution to the current dispute and ensure that postal services are maintained; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the steps she proposes to take to bring about a speedy solution to the escalating postal dispute; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the action she intends to take to end the postal dispute; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The House is already aware that An Post is in serious financial difficulty. The company have suffered losses each year since 1989. Its accumulated losses to end 1991 amounted to £13.8 million. The company is projecting a loss of £8.5 million for 1992. Its annual overtime bill is running at £21 million.
My predecessor arranged for the drawing up of a Government/Irish Congress of Trade Unions formula for the necessary management/union negotiations. At a later date and in accordance with that formula he arranged for the negotiations to be held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, with a view to drawing up proposals to achieve breakeven in 1992. The commission devoted considerable time and effort to this exercise and, in addition, set up an independent tribunal to make recommendations of a priority nature on An Post's recovery proposals. Between 22 October 1991 and 31 March 1992, 25 meetings took place. I regret that, despite all these initiatives and efforts, it has not been possible for management and unions to reach agreement on any significant measure to reverse the loss-making trend in An Post.
A formula drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission last October, following an industrial dispute in An Post, made provision for deferment of the first phase of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress from 1 November 1991 to 1 February 1992, subject to the ability of the company to make the payment. As the company's financial fortunes had not improved in the meantime An Post could not make the payment on 1 February. However, the company have reviewed their position in the light of their worsening financial problems and the concern of postal staff about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress payment. An Post decided to proceed with their priority proposals with effect from 27 April and to make the Programme for Economic and Social Progress payment, with full retrospection, to their staff on 15 May 1992. The proposals include the employment of 250 temporary and part-time staff to reduce overtime levels in the Dublin area and maintain the quality of the mail's service as the leave season commences.
I am disappointed that the unions are resisting the implementation of these recovery measures. Such action will aggravate an already difficult financial situation in An Post and delay the implementation of urgently-needed recovery measures.
The development of modern telecommunications services and courier services is providing keen competition for An Post. The signals from the European Commission are that it will propose liberalisation measures in a Green Paper on Postal Services in the Community. Against that background there is a clear need for change in central sorting arrangements in the postal service.
The postal service plays a major part in the economic and social life of the community and also provides very important agency services particularly in disbursement of social welfare payments and in attracting funds for the national savings services. In 1979 a protracted industrial dispute in the postal service caused untold hardship to the staff as well as to customers. In addition, the economy suffered serious damage. I am sure that nobody wants a recurrence of that unfortunate dispute. The community cannot afford a disruption of postal services at this stage.
I appeal to the unions involved to consider the gravity of An Post's financial position and to co-operate with the company in their difficult task of rectifying the situation. Postal charges were increased in 1990 and 1991 to generate much-needed additional revenue for An Post but the increases were not sufficient to resolve the company's financial problems. Further general price increases at this stage could not be justified. The question of an Exchequer subsidy to meet An Post's day-to-day operating costs is not being contemplated. Cost-cutting measures in An Post cannot be avoided if the future of the company and their employees is to be secured.
I am seriously concerned about not only the disruption in mail services now taking place but also the damaging effect that such disruption is likely to have on our international reputation. An Post are keeping in close contact with the Department of Social Welfare regarding the arrangements for the disbursement of social welfare benefits. I am sure that nobody would wish to hold pensioners and other social welfare beneficiaries up to ransom. I am keeping in close touch with the whole situation. I can assure the House that every possible effort will be made to ensure that, as far as is possible, the commercial, industrial and social needs of the State will not be neglected as regards postal services.
In my view the appropriate way to settle this dispute is to use fully the industrial relations machinery, including the available adjudication procedures, and both sides should accept and implement the outcome of these procedures. A long dispute would seriously damage An Post and inevitably result in greater job losses. I appeal to the parties to avoid that appalling prospect.
May I register my disappointment that the Minister failed to answer the question as to what steps she intends to take to avert disruption of the postal service. Why is the Minister so blatantly one-sided in relation to this dispute because her strictures were directed in one direction, that of the trade union involved, forgetting that it was management who broke off discussions on 27 March last? What practical and positive steps does the Minister intend to take to avoid disruption? Is her lack of urgency similar to that of her predecessor who, on 7 February 1991, said this crisis could not be allowed to continue and then did nothing to prevent it escalating?
I went to considerable lengths in a very full, frank and open answer to outline the history of this dispute, the amount of time and effort expended by both sides to try to resolve it, to set out clearly the recommendations of the Labour Relations Commission and the findings of the tribunal. At this stage I can only reiterate that the conciliation and arbitration machinery is the proper way for both sides to resolve this dispute.
I too wish to express my deep concern that the Minister would seem to be keeping in close touch with only one side in the dispute. Will the Minister assure the House that she will take positive steps by calling on the management of An Post to cease taking unilateral action and insist that the parties return to the Labour Relations Commission to iron out whatever differences remain? In relation to maintaining close contact with the Department of Social Welfare can the Minister give an assurance that those persons who heretofore received their benefit by post will receive it by some other means this week? Is the Minister aware that those who have been receiving their payments by post are being told they will not be delivered by An Post or collected?
There is a question on that subject matter; let us not anticipate it.
I reject the allegation, repeated by Deputy McCartan, that my reply is confined to one aspect of this dispute. I set out clearly the history of the dispute and the 25 separate efforts at negotiation.
Negotiations are a two-way process.
It is important to place on record that the proposals being implemented by An Post are in line with the recommendations of the Hugh Geoghegan Tribunal which was set up by the Labour Relations Commission. I am a believer in conciliation and arbitration and that is the way we must go to resolve this dispute.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I too am utterly appalled at the general tone of the Minister's reply given that she implied that the workers are holding social welfare recipients to ransom. Is the Minister aware that in a letter dated 26 February the Labour Relations Commission stated that negotiations should be brought to finality as soon as possible and, if necessary, matters should be put to a ballot? Given that management withdrew from those negotiations, is the Minister aware that a ballot is now in train and that we are awaiting developments? Would the Minister not agree that management are totally out of order in taking such unilateral action which is not in keeping with proper industrial relations that are so important in this sector? Will the Minister accept that this country needs a postal strike like it needs a hole in the head? The Minister should use her position to try to bring both parties together. She should ask management to withdraw the suspensions and get down to resolving this dispute. As we saw in the bank dispute, it must be resolved by negotiation.
That is what I have been saying in my reply and that is why conciliation and arbitration are so important. We are talking about negotiation, and that is what we have been talking about since 22 October last year.
What is involved in this dispute is a reduction of excessive overtime by taking on temporary and part-time workers to perform the work. In the light of the current unemployment figures, I find it difficult to understand how anybody could object to An Post's proposals.
Overtime is not the issue.
Overtime is the issue and it is unfair of Deputy Ryan to say it is not. The issue here is a reduction in excessive overtime. We all accept that excessive overtime is incorrect and is a scandal. It damages the company, and I would go so far as to say that it damages the workers involved and should have been eliminated. What An Post are attempting to do is to recruit 250 workers to do the work. I do not think anybody could object to that.
A Deputy
They are suspending 400.
That is a reasonable proposal. It is a proposal which went to the Labour Relations Commission and the tribunal; and the proposals of An Post are in accordance with the recommendations of the tribunal.
In view of the Minister's alarmingly biased reply which now gives grounds to the fears of the workers that the Government may use this dispute to bring in the rationalisation plans and to achieve the job losses that are outlined by management within An Post, will she make a statement to ease workers' fears? Furthermore, will she indicate what steps she has taken to initiate negotiations to end the dispute?
The only issue is the excessive overtime in the Dublin area.
That is not true.
Would the Minister not agree that the present financial problem arises from bad management decisions in An Post in the past and that the escalation in overtime arises from the rationalisation programme which was carried out by management at the behest of management? Furthermore, will she confirm if the management of An Post are under instructions from the Government to fight this to the bitter end? That is the information that is circulating at the moment. We are told that this is armageddon, that this will be the decisive battle.
I stated earlier that An Post had losses of £13.8 million last year; the company are projecting a loss of £8.5 million this year and their bill for overtime is £21 million. That is excessive by any standards. These proposals by An Post to employ an extra 250 people are an attempt to reduce the excessive overtime being worked in the Dublin area.
As a result of bad management decisions by An Post.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the arrangements, if any, he has made to enable his Department deliver cheques to social welfare recipients in the event of difficulties arising with the postal service.
I am most concerned about this matter. The situation is still developing and is, of course, quite volatile. However, I am glad to say that the vast majority of social welfare recipients should receive their payment in the normal way this week. For instance, pensioners and most other persons paid at post offices should not be affected in any way by the disruption of postal services.
The position of claimants paid by cheque, however, requires special attention. An Post have advised my Department that people who live outside of Dublin will receive their payment as usual through the post this week. However, as there will be no postal deliveries in the Dublin area, my Department are making special arrangements for claimants in the Dublin area.
The people who are affected are those claimants who live in the Dublin area and who are recipients of any of the following payments: disability benefit, injury benefit, maternity benefit and death grants. The Dublin area for this purpose includes all of Dublin city and most of Dublin county except Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock.
To enable these clients to get paid, a special cheque collection centre is being opened in Oisin House, Pearse Street, tomorrow. This centre will be open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day for as long as the postal disruption lasts.
Any person who lives in the affected areas and who is due to be paid may call to the special centre on their normal day of payment and collect their cheque. If they cannot call themselves, they can send someone to collect their cheque for them.
An advertisement about the opening of the special cheque collection centre will appear in the national newspapers tomorrow morning. Social welfare clients generally are also being advised through the media not to post any forms, pension books, medical certificates or other documents to my Department's offices in Dublin until further notice. Instead, they should hand them into any local office of my Department. Clients living in Dublin may hand their documents in at the nearest social welfare services local office or at the public offices in Oisín House, Pearse Street, Gandon House, Amiens Street, or Phibsboro Tower. Special arrangements are also being made to ensure that unemployment assistance recipients who are paid by cheque are paid this week.
Finally, I would like to say that I regret very sincerely any inconvenience caused to any of my Department's clients because of the postal disruption. If this disruption continues for long the problems will inevitably get worse. For this reason, I hope for everyone's sake that the difficulties in An Post which have led to this disruption are resolved very quickly.
Will the Minister give me some further information? This week many people will be concerned about cheques that have been posted and that may not arrive at their destination. Will the Minister consider setting up a free phone service so that the public can contact an official to find out the position? Is the Minister happy with the arrangements that have been made for Dublin as I understand only one office will be dealing with Dublin? Will there be overcrowding? Will people have to wait for long periods to collect their cheques? Will the Minister have another look at that?
The question of a free phone service was considered and should not present any difficulty.
There should not be the great problems the Deputy spoke of. We have been making provision for some time to ensure that every social welfare recipient gets payment without undue delay. That is not to say that if the dispute escalates there will not be difficulties but I am satisfied the Department will be able to alleviate any hardship on social welfare recipients.
That disposes of Questions for today.
May I ask a brief question? Arising from the Minister's reply——
Questions today have gone on to 4.10 p.m.
May I ask a very brief question?
If I allow the Deputy to ask a question, I shall have to allow other Deputies in also. I will allow the Deputy a brief question——
A Cheann Comhairle——
——and Deputy Mitchell also. Brevity, please.
There are two matters which need to be considered the first of which is the question of travel costs for recipients who have to travel in from the suburbs. These can amount to £3 for a return journey depending on the area concerned in Dublin. Second, because of their disability, many recipients receive their payment through the post. Will these people be able to send a substitute or make some other arrangements to collect their payment?
In reply to the Deputy's second point, as I said in my initial reply, people can either call in themselves or send some other person to collect their payment. In regard to travel costs. I hope the workers in An Post will bear this in mind in relation to their attitude to the strike. I am trying to ensure that social welfare recipients will be paid. I am not in a position, nor should I be expected, to supply buses or bicycles for people to come in. Let us be reasonable about this matter——
Shame.
(Interruptions.)
I am trying to ensure that the Department of Social Welfare's clients will be paid on time. I hope that the other matters raised by the Deputy will be considered by the unions and everyone else involved in the postal dispute.
The Minister is just as bad as the Minister for Health; he should get on his bike and take his pill.
I wish to reiterate the points raised by Deputy McCartan. I am appalled that the Minister could ignore the plight of those living on £45 to £50 a week and who may have to pay as much as £3 or £4 in bus fares which they cannot afford. I ask the Minister to revise his indifferent attitude and recognise the difficulties facing those people. What steps has the Minister taken, under the supplementary welfare system to ensure that the people who will be put out in the way Deputy McCartan mentioned or who will not receive their payments for some reason, as mentioned by Deputy Cotter, will receive their payments this week and next week under the supplementary welfare system?
As the Deputy would know, the supplementary welfare allowance system is used in getting over problems, for example, substitute payments from the Department of Social Welfare and delays, and this system will continue to be available to those who may find themselves in this position.
Will the Minister give us a guarantee, if people cannot afford the bus fare and need to go to town to collect their payment, that they will be given the bus fare under the supplementary welfare system?
A final question from Deputy Farrelly.
Will the Minister answer the question?
If the strike continues, how many recipients will we be talking about in the Dublin area? Is it 10,000 or 50,000?
It all depends on what happens this week in relation to the postal dispute. I am not in a position to give the figure at this time.
That disposes of questions for today.
When the Minister does have it, will he let us know what it is?
I will.