Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 3

Private Notice Questions.

Industrial Disputes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.

Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the steps he intends to take to help secure a solution to the dispute at An Post which has lead to the suspension of many workers and serious disruption of the postal service, especially in the Dublin area, particularly given the serious consequences of a prolonged dispute for business, especially small business, and the distribution of social welfare payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will make a statement on An Post’s management’s disgraceful actions in suspending An Post workers.

Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to make a statement on the future of An Post given the ongoing dispute between the unions and management at the company, the stalling of employee share ownership trust, ESOT, legislation for the workforce and the serious financial crisis in which the company finds itself due to the poor strategic direction taken by the board in recent years.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. D. Ahern)

I thank Deputies for tabling their questions and giving me the opportunity to say a few words in regard to this issue.

I welcome the decision of the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, to invite An Post management and the Communications Workers Union to talks tomorrow on the current industrial difficulties in the company. In the context of the proposed intervention of the LRC, it would not be appropriate for me to become involved or pre-judge in any way the deliberations of tomorrow's meeting, but I wish them well.

The Taoiseach is also of the view that the established industrial relations mechanisms should be used in this instance. In disputes of this nature, the people ultimately affected are An Post customers and, for this reason, I encourage all parties to the dispute to engage fully with the LRC to resolve the current difficulties. The restoration of services, which An Post customers are entitled to expect, is required now.

The issues involved in this dispute are complex. However, there is one underlying reality which can not be ignored. An Post is in deep financial trouble and no amount of wishful thinking can airbrush away this reality. The simple facts are the company is losing €600,000 every week, that is, €120,000 per working day or €2.5 million each month. This is the stark reality that all sides must address. To do otherwise is to walk away from responsibilities, not just to the taxpayers who own the company but to the employees who work for it and the customers who rely on it.

The problem is more serious than that. Between 2002 and the end of this year, An Post will have lost €100 million. Its cash reserves are almost exhausted. The company has only a finite amount of family silver to sell to keep afloat. The economy and the public cannot afford to bear continuing price rises to sustain the existing cost structures of the company.

An Post must return to profitability. To do this the company needs a cost base which reflects reality. The company has to change but time is not on its side.

The company is facing significantly more competition. Customers, particularly those in business, have increasing choice. With increasing choice comes keener pricing, more challenging service requirements and competition from e-mail and mobile texting. The postal market is liberalising. Efficient and aggressive operators and efficient operators in Europe, such as Deutsche Post and the Dutch operator, TPG — both partly state owned — are chasing business in Ireland through their subsidiaries. Until An Post aligns its cost base and efficiencies with industry leaders it will not be in a position to meet the challenges arising from liberalisation, globalisation and changing technology.

The current industrial relations in An Post have been simmering for some time. An Post customers in Drogheda, Tuam, Galway and Mitchelstown have been suffering disruption to postal deliveries since early February. Its escalation into the Dublin area and surrounding counties and international mail deliveries is a very damaging development.

The economy cannot afford disruption to an essential service such as the postal network. Business lost cannot easily be regained. I have urged all parties to the dispute to bear this in mind. However, I caution against sticking plaster solutions. The problems in An Post are substantial and real. The solution to the current issues must put the company on a long-term sustainable financial and operational footing.

The rationale for the employee share option plan was to give An Post employees a stake in a reformed and profitable company, quite simply a stake in their future. The plan provided for the transfer of up to 14.9% of the company in return for cost savings and specified profit levels. Savings amounting to €34 million were to be achieved between 2000 and 2003, and 5% of the transfer related to the delivery of savings within specified timescales. The remainder of the shareholding, 9.9%, was contingent on profits. In May 2003, the board of An Post claimed that savings amounting to just €7.17 million had been achieved under the plan.

In view of the underlying financial situation in An Post, I decided to commission a review of the company ESOP to see whether, in fact, the share option plan has contributed in any way to company transformation as required. I expect to receive this report shortly. However, the indications are that neither the savings nor the profits projected have been achieved. However, the Government and I are fully committed to the ESOP provided that the change and cost-saving terms of the agreement are delivered. This has clearly been communicated to the CWU and the other unions.

I am assured that An Post and the Department of Social and Family Affairs have put in place measures to ensure that welfare recipients paid by cheque receive their payments. Social welfare clients who are paid through the post office are not affected by the current dispute.

Mr. Broughan

The whole community is seriously threatened by the escalation of this dispute into an all-out strike. The decision by the union not to proceed, despite a massive vote in favour of strike action last Friday, showed the fundamental interest of the workforce in achieving a firm future for the company.

The national programme, Sustaining Progress, states that industrial relations in semi-State bodies and commercial semi-State companies were to be based on partnership. Does the Minister agree that there has been a major breakdown in trust between the workforce, the current management and the Minister, particularly in the last six months, which has contributed to the current difficult situation? Last September, the Minister announced a recovery plan which involved the Minister being briefed on a monthly basis on the essentials of the company's performance. That being the case, what actions did the Minister take, particularly in the last two or three months, to avoid the impasse which has been reached in the four hubs, particularly in the Clondalkin hub, last Friday? How did the Minister pursue his brief under the recovery strategy? Last October, he informed the House that he was alarmed at the performance of the board and previous management of the company, which had been poor and inept. What steps has he taken in that regard?

Is it the case, as the media report today, that the Minister gave a green light to management to proceed with what has been happening in the past week or so? The transformation through partnership deal was agreed three years ago and a series of steps put in place, including the creation of an ESOT, which were to lead to financial stability for the company's future. Having achieved such a meeting of minds three years ago, it seems incredible that this has been allowed to dissipate under the Minister's administration. Will the Minister get transformation through partnership back on track as soon as possible and get the company into a profitable service mode for our community?

Mr. D. Ahern

There is, undoubtedly, a breakdown of trust between the company and the unions. I do not agree that there is a breakdown of trust between myself and the company or between myself and the unions. I have made it clear to the unions that, as far as the Government is concerned, an agreement exists and that if the conditions of the agreement are met, the Government will meet its side of the bargain.

A recovery plan was put together by the company after a change in management. That draft recovery strategy was published and approved by the entire board of 13, including the five worker directors, in September 2003. Negotiations with the trade unions began last November and I was briefed on the draft recovery plan. My position was that it was a matter for management and the trade unions to discuss the issue, to progress the strategy and to approve the final draft of the strategy. Those negotiations entailed substantial changes for the workers, including 1,350 redundancies, and the unions expressed concerns regarding the rewards available and the phasing of those rewards. The negotiations between the company and the CWU broke down in December 2003 and have not recommenced. The situation has become progressively worse since then.

With regard to newspaper reports, I did not give a green light to management or indeed the unions, with regard to this dispute. My officials and I have been available to facilitate in any way possible. This problem has been simmering for some time. My position has always been that the bushfire disputes in a number of regions are unofficial actions and that there is a time-honoured labour relations apparatus, set up under partnership agreements and before, to facilitate round table discussions. This dispute will ultimately be solved around a table. I had a meeting early this morning with the chief executive of An Post and other members of senior management about the issue and the possible involvement of the Labour Relations Commission. I am delighted that the commission subsequently invited the company, the management and the trade union, which had previously said it was willing to participate in any talks, to take part in talks which will commence as soon as possible. We all appreciate that the lack of trust between both sides means those talks will be especially difficult.

On the employee share ownership plan, ESOP, I spoke about this issue during a reply to a parliamentary question on 3 February and possibly on a date since that. The reply I gave on 3 February clearly illustrates my position and that of the Government. I have taken the time to read the transformation agreement related to the ESOP. One does not have to be a lawyer to read it because it is the simplest document I have ever read. It clearly states the conditions for the delivery of a shareholding to the workers in An Post in return for 5% of the company shareholding. Cost savings amounting to €34 million were to be achieved between 2000 and 2003. Instead of achieving those cost savings — the union will blame the management and the management will blame the union — the opposite happened. Staff costs rose by €52 million between 2000 and 2001, which represented a 13% increase, and by €40 million between 2001 and 2002.

Mr. Rabbitte

How much of that was overtime?

Mr. D. Ahern

That is only related to cost savings and the increase in staff costs. As regards profits, in September 2003, An Post advised that the forecast profit for 2003 would be €1 million, but that turned into a loss of €29.5 million.

I have a long chronological list of the position I adopted when I became Minister and when my officials advised me of the position as far back as November 2000. In a letter to the then chief executive, we set out our concerns about what we believed were the costs. We had this discussion during a previous Question Time. We were concerned about the facts and figures we were given. The company consistently denied over many months that there was any need for a recovery strategy or a survival plan. As a result, I refused, probably for the first time in the history of the State, to bring the annual accounts of An Post to Government for approval until such time as I believed the company came clean about the financial position. It was only in May 2003 that it finally admitted there would be losses, which ultimately transpired to be the case.

I say that in the context of the ESOP to which we are committed. I would be more than willing to deliver on the ESOP, but I have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that, if that happens, there must be cost savings on the other side.

Mr. J. Higgins

An Post and the Communication Workers Union have agreed to go to the Labour Relations Commission. Will the Minister call on An Post management to restore all workers to their positions immediately pending discussions to get the mail flowing and to deliver a service to customers? Is the Minister aware whether An Post, while preparing to go to the LRC, is obtaining legal advice on whether it can lock out all its staff nationwide?

Mr. D. Ahern

I am not aware of An Post obtaining legal advice and I had a long discussion with its management this morning about this matter. It is clear there is a difficulty in the Dublin mail centre, but that is not replicated in other parts of the country. I am not sure, therefore, where the Deputy is coming from. As regards calling on anyone to prevent a lock-out or to ensure the workers go back to work, we all want the work to resume and the workers to do the duties they were doing immediately before the strike. We want that to happen as quickly as possible, but that issue will be a kernel of the initial discussions with the Labour Relations Commission. I would not like to pre-judge or pre-empt that by saying one thing or another, and I am sure the Deputy would not want me to do that.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The Minister made two statements which are interesting. He said he met the chief executive and senior management of An Post early this morning and he also said that last year he was unhappy with the accounts presented by the company and refused to bring them to the Government. What I notice in the dealings of the Oireachtas joint committee which examined An Post——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should ask a question.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

What is the board's position in this regard? The Minister's job is to appoint the board and to allow it to give strategic direction to the company.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is probably at a cumann meeting.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The cost management problems in the company are not necessarily due to high labour costs but to atrocious management decisions in recent years. The board failed to supervise that. Does the Minister agree that the board does not seem to have any strategic——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should ask a question because other Deputies are offering.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Is the Minister happy with the performance of the board of the company over the past three to four years? Does he intend to change the membership of the board in light of the disastrous position in which this company finds itself?

Mr. D. Ahern

The people in management are paid full-time salaries. Some of them are paid multiples of what the Deputy and I are paid to manage a substantial company with 10,000 employees and significant difficulties on a day-to-day basis. The board is a part-time one which acts on the information it is given at any one time.

The Department officials who interact on a day-to-day basis with the 55 companies or agencies under our aegis, of which An Post is probably one of the more substantial, had difficulties obtaining precise financial details of the company. As far back as October 2002, the company advised me in a budget presentation that the profits would be €5.6 million in 2003. On 15 November my Department wrote to the then chief executive officer setting out our concerns at the scale of losses. We received a reply which stated that a survival plan was not needed because the existing plan was working. We wrote back in January stating that there were differences between our position and that of the company in terms of its finances. On 15 January we received a reply which stated that the company was expecting profits of €1.1 million. Late in January we received another letter which stated the company would be profitable in 2003 and 2004. We wrote back in February stating that we were still concerned. This went on continuously. The Department and I had many meetings with the management at that time at which we expressed alarm at the position.

The remark made about the board was unfair and unworthy of the Deputy. The members of the board are substantial members, including the worker directors. I defend their position in this regard. They were working on a situation which was similar to that on which we were working. However, that situation has changed dramatically. Instead of denying the financial situation, the company now fully accepts that it is extremely difficult. We must work together on this issue.

My officials, the unions and management must work together to try to turn the situation around. However, it will incur extreme hardship for the company. This is a company which had cash reserves of €170 million in late 2000. Today, it has no cash reserves. It is living on selling the family silver——

Mr. Broughan

It spent €100 million on machinery.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

There is no control.

Mr. D. Ahern

——and on increasing costs. It spent €100 million on new machinery. Unfortunately, however, the productivity and staff reductions that were inherently required in that process were not delivered. Savings to be made by implementing new work structures, such as new machinery, were not delivered. More than 200 extra staff were employed and the new machinery, which was supposed to reduce costs, cost €100 million.

Mr. B. Smith

The Ceann Comhairle will be aware that many of our constituents in County Monaghan are affected by this dispute. I have received a number of queries already. How will social welfare recipients be affected by the dispute?

Mr. D. Ahern

I am guaranteed that social welfare recipients will be able to receive their social welfare payments through systems set up by the Department of Social and Family Affairs which will be advertised in the newspapers. Cheques will be available for collection in social welfare offices. I am assured by An Post that those who receive their payments through the post office will continue to receive them there.

Over the years this House, regardless of who was in government, was regularly in convulsions about rural post offices. We were constantly told that the rural post offices had to close because they were a millstone around the neck of the postal service. The post office system is profitable today. The reason is that it went to the trouble of finding extra business such as the AIB contract and the payment of utility bills through the post offices. Today, the two millstones for An Post are the letter post service, where costs have increased each year by an average of between €20 million and €30 million for the past few years, and the SDS delivery service, which is working in an extremely competitive market.

I assure Deputy Smith that arrangements are being made between An Post and the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure that all payments are made to clients.

Mr. Coveney

All Members of the House accept that An Post needs to go through fundamental change and that the recovery plan must be put in place. What are the Minister's views on his responsibility to ensure that some consistent and modern postal delivery service continues during the difficult transition period? In his discussions this morning, did the Minister discuss with management of An Post the possibility of resuming normal service during the LRC talks process or can we still expect post boxes in Dublin to be sealed in the next few days to prevent people posting letters? What time does the Minister believe the LRC process will take or is it possible to predict at this stage? Is there an appetite on the part of management to invite people who have been suspended in recent days to return to work during the difficult talks process, which might be ongoing for some time?

Mr. D. Ahern

I answered that question to some extent in a previous reply. I will not pre-empt what is probably one of the key issues for the initial stage of the discussions in the LRC, that is, the conditions upon which staff will return to work. The company has a position and the union has another position. That situation must ultimately be mediated by the independent mediator. We will just have to wait and see. I do not know how long the process will take.

Obviously, we want the service to be restored as quickly as possible. The country does not need this problem and, in particular, the company and the staff do not need it. Look at what happened 25 years ago when there was a substantial strike in An Post. Many new businesses were set up because of the strike — I remember it because I was in business at the time — and they are still in being. In this day and age, particularly with the availability of new technology, the damage to the State postal service will be even worse unless there is a quick return to work.

Mr. McHugh

Obviously, the Minister's early morning meeting spurred An Post management into accepting the intervention of the Labour Relations Commission. In an earlier reply the Minister included Tuam with all the other centres. I am concerned about that because the disruption in Tuam does not have the same cause as the disruption in other centres. It is not about pay but about unsatisfactory and unsafe working conditions. That is acknowledged by both management and workers. Will the Minister confirm that the Tuam situation will be considered by the Labour Relations Commission? Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that it is dealt with first and separately? It is a different situation and is not related to the other disputes. It could be resolved. It is only a matter of deciding whether the workers in Tuam are engaged in continued unofficial industrial action. Will the Minister ensure that is done?

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy raised this matter with me previously. In any discussions I have had, particularly about getting this issue into the LRC, I have insisted that if it is possible within the structure, problems such as Tuam and Drogheda in my constituency should be part of the solution. While the Deputy might say these matters have nothing to do with the broader issue, they are part of the difficulties in An Post in the context of relations with management. I hope Tuam is one of the issues that will be dealt with by the LRC.

Mr. Broughan

Clearly the non-payment in November of the 3% due under Sustaining Progress by management was a key point in the descent into the current situation. With regard to the ESOT, are the Minister's figures correct or in line with the 2002 reports, which stated that savings of €9.4 million had already been achieved by the end of 2002? That figure was projected to rise to €22 million by the end of 2003. With regard to the employee share ownership plan, are any of the figures submitted by the previous management to this House in its reports and so forth to be believed? What basis was there for establishing an ESOT in the company?

The postal Bill was on the agenda for the first day the House resumed after the break but the Bill still has not been published. The only Bill around is the old Bill published in 2001. Has the Minister plans to publish the new Bill? When will the 2003 results be published? Last year we got the 2002 report in April. Can we expect the 2003 final result next month?

I note that KPMG is the auditor of the 2002 report. Given the chairperson's address and some of the remarks the Minister has made, can we expect the 2002 report to be accurate? The Minister seems to be raising very fundamental questions in that regard. The point has been well made by colleagues. The Minister, as far as I understand, attended a board of directors meeting before Christmas. What action did he take on foot of his fairly complete briefing on the state of the company to try to head off what is now happening?

Does the Minister accept that one of the difficulties regarding the current position, in terms of the directive on full market liberalisation by 2009, is that we had one of the cheapest postal services in Europe during the 1990s and we still have the third cheapest basic stamp at 48 cent — the average in the EU is 71 cent? In addition, regarding the people who are being laid off, in particular the delivery staff, we are talking about average wages of €350 to €400 a week, which at a few euro above the minimum wage, is by no means exceptional money for a workforce of 8,000 people who have been running a remarkable universal service since the foundation of the State. They are rightly famed up and down this land for the care and attention they have given and for the way in which the postmen and women of Ireland took care of seniors and people in vulnerable situations and who do a very difficult job — the controversy over letterboxes will be remembered. That must be acknowledged in this House today. It is appalling that such outstanding servants of the public should be locked out of their own workplace.

Will the Minister appeal to management to end its provocative action? I know the Minister does not want to go into the nitty gritty of the negotiations which are, I hope, going on at the Labour Relations Court. However, regarding the second phase of the transformation agreement on delivery staff, will the Minister appeal to the management to withdraw the action it has taken to allow service to be resumed and then together, in a partnership mode, work out the future for this vital service?

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy raised the question of an ESOP. I dealt with that earlier.

Mr. Broughan

The 2002 accounts seem to be different.

Mr. D. Ahern

I gave the costs. There is an operational loss in 2002 of €70 million, an operational loss of €42.7 in 2003 and an expected loss of €30 million this year. That totals somewhere in the region of €90 million to €100 million. In that context people are asking that we comply with the transformation agreement which indicated that relatively small savings could be achieved over a period but these were not achieved. The company and the unions admit they were not achieved over the period. It is doubtful whether they were achieved in the context of the increasing costs on the other side.

Mr. Broughan

It is stated here that it was achieved in 2002.

Mr. D. Ahern

In terms of independent checking, I am due to get a report in the very near future. Indications are that independent report will show that those savings were not in any way achieved.

Regarding the 2003 accounts, I cannot give the exact figures, but we have seen a draft of unaudited results of An Post which seem to show an operating loss of €43 million. There may be savings on the other side because An Post has, in the past year, sold very substantial properties, but that cannot go on forever. The 2003 accounts show that most of the other sectors in the company are either breaking even or making money. Letter post and SDS, unfortunately, are the reasons for the crisis in An Post. Regarding letter post, while revenues improved in 2002 by €30 million, it was not enough to absorb the €50 million increase in the letter post cost base. SDS budgeted for revenues of €20 million but missed the budgets. Again, the situation relating to the cash position was extremely difficult in 2003. It is hard to sustain an argument that any cost savings have been achieved. Overall revenue declined in 2003. The group is increasingly looking to price increases rather than new products for revenue growth. What we are seeing at the moment is a slowing down in the use of letters because of a slowing down of the economy and an increase in new technology. In an increasingly difficult market, costs are going up but revenues are going down. The international market is liberalised since January 2004. No union deal has been struck, yet the company will suffer sporadic action. It is not clear what the company achieved for the €15 million severance pay which was paid out, nor is it clear how the €35 million severance provision will ever be met. Only four post office conversions were achieved in 2003. It is very illustrative. I have a string of Deputies coming to me from all parties about post office conversions. There was an agreement some time ago in which post office officials got an increase of 12.5% on the basis that they would, within a certain period, achieve conversions of rural post offices under the agreement. Fifty of them were to be achieved. Only four have been achieved. Unfortunately that sort of problem is endemic.

Mr. J. Higgins

Would it be helpful to understanding where responsibility for the present crisis lies if the Minister abandoned his "do not look at me" posture and accepted responsibility for the crisis? Would the Minister agree that the turning of a projected loss of €1 million into €40 million within a few months during his watch under a board that he or his predecessor appointed and which is answerable to him, is his responsibility and that he should, therefore, desist from joining the chorus which puts the onus on the workers? What is the Minister's attitude to the management methods of An Post management? I have heard of midnight raids conducted by the authorities. I have heard of the authorities conducting dawn raids. Will the Minister condemn the disgraceful provocation of An Post management in conducting a between midnight and dawn raid on its workers, descending Dracula-like on the workers at the ungodly hour of 2.30 a.m. on a Saturday morning, unilaterally attempting to push on them new unagreed working practices, suspending them when they quite rightly refused, and persisting with that in the cold light of day afterwards. Even Dracula retreated into his coffin as sunlight approached.

Will the Minister agree that at the heart of this dispute is the policy of the Government in giving encouragement to these counter-productive and aggressive methods of An Post management? Will he agree that the attacks by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, on Aer Rianta and CIE are wrong? Will he agree that the Government's attitude to Departments and civil servants is that they are "decentralisable" baubles to be traded for votes, all of which is a direct encouragement to management in An Post to adopt this incredible posture which is contemptuous of the workers who perform a crucial and valuable service in our society?

Will the Minister use his influence today to call on the management to immediately restore workers to their positions, which he has so far refused to do? Will he agree that the best and only future for An Post is as a public service but with workers at the heart of the management of that service at all levels, fully involved and with decent wages and conditions? That is the way forward rather than these contemptible, almost pre-capitalist practices of the current management.

Mr. D. Ahern

I do not agree with the Deputy's political hyperbole and I do not agree with engaging in the blame game at this stage, and I have not since I became Minister. I do not go down the Deputy's road of blaming one side and not the other. Unfortunately, the difficulties in all of this have been endemic in the company for some time and the Deputy's attitude is not helpful in solving it. What is helpful is that people like the Deputy and other Members of this House who might have influence with some of these people — I also have a duty in that respect — use their influence to ensure that people come back to the table and do not put in preconditions. I agree with the Deputy that measures should not be taken in such a way that will exacerbate the situation on either side.

Mr. J. Higgins

They have been.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I have three questions for the Minister. First, the Minister is right, we cannot simply blame one side or the other but to date the Minister appears to have singularly blamed the failure of the unions or the workers to bring in cost savings. Will he agree that the investment decisions by the management of this company in recent years were incredibly poor and were made, as the Minister more or less said earlier, without the proper control that would apply to a private sector company making the same decisions and that hundreds of millions of euro were seemingly misspent in the past three years?

Second, given that the transformation plan is in tatters, why would the Minister not consider proceeding with the ESOP so that the workers would have an incentive to try to reduce costs and get the company working again? Why do we have to wait until the company is profitable or is ready for sale before we give a shareholding? The idea of worker shareholdings is that it gives the workers an incentive to turn the company around and also gives them a stronger say in terms of the direction of the company. That should be the purpose of the ESOP. Why is the Minister sticking to this plan which has utterly failed? In his role as chairman of the company, effectively, would he not instigate a new plan, the first brick in which could be to give the workers a share in the company?

My third question is the most important one. It is a dire situation when the Minister with responsibility for communications can say that the key problem in the postal company is that it is losing money on the post. The Minister is right, we are talking about a company that is in dire financial straits. What will the Minister do if the company becomes insolvent? What does he propose to do if the management tells him it has no more cash in the bank, that it has sold all the assets, which it is doing rapidly at the moment, that it has no more money and it will go out of business? What does the Minister intend to do if those circumstances arise?

Mr. D. Ahern

In regard to the ESOP, I have a duty to the taxpayer. An agreement was made a number of years ago in regard to the transformation of this company. There was a quid pro quo and, unfortunately, the quid pro quo has not been delivered. I agree with the Deputy that workers should have a stake in a company but what is the point in having a stake in a company which is cumulatively €100 million in the red?

Mr. Eamon Ryan

So there is no cost to the State——

Mr. D. Ahern

I will say this, and it is a point I perhaps missed earlier. In regard to the delivery of the Sustaining Progress payment, the company, unusually in this sector, has pleaded inability to pay but having given the Deputy the figures, he probably understands why the company is in a position where it is losing €120,000 per working day. It is not in a position to make that payment. It is pleading inability to pay under the clause in Sustaining Progress but the management has made it clear that it is prepared to pay the Sustaining Progress payment of approximately €18 million per annum if the full set of agreed changes are implemented and result in the efficiencies that had been already agreed.

The Deputy, like Deputy Higgins, is asking me to get involved in the blame game, but I will not do that.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is not blame, it is responsibility.

Mr. D. Ahern

What I am asking is that both sides would get around the table because my view on this, from Saturday evening last, was that the sooner they did that, the better because they would have to do it anyway. Thankfully, the Labour Relations Commission is involved because of contacts that had been made through the implementation group and through other contacts——

Mr. Broughan

Will the Minister ask for the provocation of the workers to end? Will he ask for the suspensions to end? Let us go back to work, is that what the Minister is saying?

Mr. D. Ahern

——including senior trade union officials who have been fully involved to try to ensure the participation of the CWU and other trade unions, although there is not so much of a difficulty with the other trade unions.

While I might like to make one comment or another in terms of what should be done, it is only fair to say that the two sides have fairly entrenched positions and we should leave it to the Labour Relations Commission which, hopefully, will appoint an assessor or perhaps a few people because this is a substantial job.

Mr. Broughan

Will more workers be suspended in the meantime? Will the service fall apart?

Mr. D. Ahern

I hope it can make recommendations on the basis upon which work can resume.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The Minister did not answer the question I asked about what he would do if the company told him it has sold all its assets. Does he have any indication of what he would do in those circumstances?

Mr. Broughan

He would resign and promote the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.

Mr. D. Ahern

This is a State company. I do not envisage that happening in any way. That is only a proposition.