I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1988
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 23rd June, 1988.
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1988: Motion.
Section 23 of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, as amended by section 21 of the recently enacted Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1988, empowers the Minister for Labour, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and other appropriate Ministers, to prescribe by order the number of directors or board members of State bodies covered by the Acts including the number of employees to be appointed after election by the workforce. The Acts require, broadly speaking, that elected representatives should make up one-third of the membership of each board.
Under the terms of section 4 of the 1977 Act any such order requires the prior approval of the Oireachtas by way of an affirmative order of each House. The intention behind that provision was to ensure that the authority or responsibility of the Oireachtas in determining the appropriate size of the board should not be diminished.
The present order sets the board sizes and the number of worker directors of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. The effect of the order is that from the date on which it is made, the size of the board of An Post will be set at 15, with five directors to be elected by the workforce, and that of Bord Telecom Éireann at 12, with four elected worker directors. The necessity for this order derives from the recent 1988 Act which repealed the provisions of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, dealing with the appointment of worker directors to the boards of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. The arrangements provided for by the order merely replicate the arrangements previously in force in the two bodies, but does so in the context of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988. I recommend that the House approve the draft order.
I welcome the Minister here with this order. It gives effect to the Act debated here in February last. That was not contentious legislation. We know that in other countries, worker participation has proved to be worthwhile and our own limited experience here bears this out. A clue to better industrial relations and to higher productivity is to liberate the energies of workers in the workplace and allow them, through participation on their boards, to be creative about their work. All workers have a clear vested interest in the well-being of their industry or their company. It affects their salaries, their pensions, their lifestyle. No one could be more vigilant and aware of the future of their own work-place than workers.
This order deals with two semi-State companies. An Post and Bord Telecom and I would like to refer to them briefly. I am happy with the change over from the old departmental status of Posts and Telegraphs, which occurred in 1984, to new and more modern concepts. We have seen very worthwhile changes — the expansion of services, new products, better quality of services and, in turn, greater use of both the postal and telephone services. I recall, as I am sure many other politicians will, that around the eighties and the end of the seventies at all general election campaigns the issue of telephones was a major one. One could easily find roads and avenues without one phone and a waiting list of up to two years.
All that has changed. We have a new company with a bright new image and we have communications of a most sophisticated kind. I would like to commend Fergus McGovern for the job he has done at the helm of Bord Telecom. Similarly, the changes in An Post are a great improvement on the near-Victorian standards of post offices and the postal service which we knew prior to 1984. Great imagination and fresh ideas have been brought to bear on the development of our postal services, the result of which has been to increase consumer spending in all kinds of ways theretofore unthought of. Those involved in the transformation are to be commended also. I particularly mention Feargal Quinn whose clear thinking and experience of retailing were very valuable in the emerging new organisation.
We have two services that are modern, aggressively marketed and poised for greater development in the future. It almost seems wrong or churlish to enter a critical note here, but I have to point out deficiencies that I am aware of and that other people have informed me about. Firstly, the procedure for billing telephone accounts is not good enough. The perception of users is that their accounts in many cases are wrong, and wrong in favour of Telecom, because there is overcharging. To get any satisfaction on cases is almost impossible. The response from Telecom is not convincing and there really ought to be a facility to meter and cost calls by the phone user. I have had great difficulty on many occasions in getting the board to look into charges in my own telephone account which I knew were excessive. It certainly is an area of grievance and note should be taken that some streamlining needs to be done to make it more efficient.
As regards An Post, there is also an area of complaint which comes up again and again. There is the problem of uncertain deliveries of mail and also serious absenteeism on Mondays.
Senator Fennell, are we on the same draft order?
Yes, I think we are talking about two specific companies and I am referring directly to them. Late deliveries are experienced in a constituency near mine, in Blackrock. For instance, one company which has its business only four doors away from the post office does not get its letters until the afternoon and sometimes not at all. Despite repeated reporting to the post office nothing has changed. This is an area in which numerous businesses have resettled from the centre of the city. There are three shopping areas and numerous offices and banks.
Sorry for interrupting you again. I note that we are dealing only with the appropriate number of directors.
These are areas that I would like to highlight because, perhaps with the change over and the worker participation on the boards, these issues might be relevant to——
If we could have passing rather than detailed references. I dislike interrupting you, Senator.
I understand, but it certainly illustrates for me the frustrations and the difficulties that resulted in the bringing forward of a Bill by Deputy Richard Bruton in the Dáil at the beginning of June. It is not possible to bring these issues up in this House or in the Dáil. In the debate in the Dáil, Deputies made it clear that they could not get answers to issues which are of relevance and importance to consumers and voters.
What I have to do is deal with what is before me on the Order Paper and you are drifting a good bit away from it. I understand your worries.
It is very difficult to bring up something like this and to highlight it. The Private Members' Bill which was published by Deputy Richard Bruton at the beginning of June attempted to address this issue and there was a very interesting and worthwhile debate on it. Its objective was to improve the quality and lower the price of the services from the two companies. It aimed to give a fair deal to consumers and to get greater accountability for Members of both Houses, to enable the Dáil and Seanad to have the right to know how these companies are performing. The proposals of Deputy Bruton were broadly welcomed. They touched on a sensitive area for many consumers and drew an enlightening debate in the Dáil.
Senator Fennell, the Minister present is not responsible for what you are referring to. The Minister for Labour is present but the matters to which you refer are the responsibility of the Minister for Communications.
I am finishing. I wish to highlight those particular problems as these two semi-State bodies are mentioned. Perhaps the Minister would pass on my comments to the responsible Minister along with another comment that I wish to make. I would ask him to convey my appreciation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, as we are talking about appointments to boards. He did a good job last week by putting an equal number of men and women on the board of the Irish Goods Council. I know I am straying off again but please allow me to say this.
You are gone completely off the matter.
For many years I have criticised various Ministers——
I hope we will have the same flexibility for the rest of the evening.
—for selecting men only for boards. I know the difficulties any Minister has to cope with when it comes to putting new members on a board. What the Minister did on that occasion was very worthwhile and demonstrated that there are very capable and good women there when one needs to fill places on a board. I would like the Minister to pass on my appreciation to him. I suggest that his colleagues in the Cabinet would take note of that for the future.
My comments will be somewhat more narrowly based and brief. Obviously I approve the motion before us. I would add that both commerical semi-State bodies, Bord Telecom and An Post, have shown remarkable progress in a short period of time. A few short years ago, up to the end of 1983, they were parts of a Government department. They then got commerical mandates and had to face into the business of, first of all, breaking even and then making profits. The success of both companies has been quite remarkable. An Post, as we know, have already turned comers in making profits. Bord Telecom, despite a weak balance sheet at the outset due to a clawback by Government under the last administration, have today announced profits of £18 million for the most recent year. This is very good news. It is particularly relevant that, however briefly we should discuss these commercial semi-State bodies today which were formerly part of a Government department, when the Minister leaves the House we will discuss Coillte Teoranta, yet another new body which is about to be launched——
And which does not have worker directors included on its board.
We can discuss that later. It augurs well for the commercial success of Coillte Teoranta as well. Furthermore, particularly in the case of Bord Telecom Éireann, not alone are there worker directors but very importantly — I hope the same will apply in Coillte Teoranta — there have been highly imaginative and innovative participators below board level which can only serve to support and buttress the worker director concept. Bord Telecom, as a very new commerical semi-State body, are quite remarkable as regards the participated philosophy they have and it augurs very well for the future. I heartily support the order.
It is unfortunate that both previous speakers have strayed so far away from the motion.
I know you will not stray from it.
I am asking immediately for the same level of tolerance. I have no doubt I can rely on you to be even-handed, as it were, in your interpretation of what is and what is not relevant. I would like immediately to refute some of what might appear to be less than allegations put forward by Senator Fennell. I would like to say immediately that anybody who looks at the development of An Post or Telecom Éireann over the last number of years and singles out the chief executives of both organisations, or the chairpersons of the boards of those organisations, as the people responsible for that development shows very little understanding really of what has happened inside those two companies. It explains to me how that disastrous Private Members' Bill Deputy Bruton introduced in the other House was so badly based. If we are going to talk about the development of those two companies we might also shove in the names of David Begg and Séamus De Paor, the general secretaries of the two unions involved in the imaginative changes that have taken place. We might also look at the participation of the worker directors in those developments, at the policy positions and papers and the plans put forward by the unions representing the workers in those semi-State companies over the last number of years. We might then look at the outcome of negotiations, painful as they were to particular unions, which in many cases involved the loss of jobs, extensive changes in practices and demanded flexibility from the workforce, which was forthcoming. I would recommend Members to read — it is unfortunate that I do not have it in front of me — the speech of Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan on Deputy Bruton's Private Members' Bill in the other House. It certainly outlines the changes that have taken place. I also recommend Members to read the speech of the Minister, Deputy Burke, on the same occasion.
It is quite unfair to talk about the development in those two commercially successful companies without reflecting on what the workers have put into them in that period. Nobody will dispute what happened there or the difficulties involved but it shows once again that management and workers must work together before there can be success in such companies. It shows the success, and this brings me back to what we should be discussing, of the worker-director scheme. Make no mistake about it, as I said in my Second Stage speech on the Bill on 3 February, there must be a recognition of — I agree totally with Senator Fennell on this — the investment of the workers in the industry. They are not in there for a profit; they are not in there to liquidate the assets and they cannot walk away and sell out on any day. They have invested themselves, all they have got to sell, their labour and their skills. That is a total and complete investment because tied up in that are houses, families, extended families and communities. They are the people with the greatest vested interest in the companies and they are the people who are represented on the boards by the worker directors. That has been the success because the plans discussed at board level were, in a sense, presented, sold and explained to the workforce via the worker directors. In the same way, the boards listened to the representations of the worker directors in order not to take decisions that would cause problems down the line.
When discussing the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Bill, 1988, as it was in February, I did refer to the legislation that preceded it, such as the 1977 Act on worker directors and the 1983 Act which set up An Post and Telecom Éireann. I referred at some length to the anomalies which were created by the initiated Bill in February. I said that we certainly needed to move An Post and Telecom Éireann into the Schedule of this Bill or change the 1983 legislation and I pointed out three anomalies at that time. I pointed to the method of election of worker directors to An Post and Telecom Éireann, to the different periods of office for the worker directors of An Post and Telecom Éireann as opposed to what was envisaged in the new legislation and I also pointed to the proportion of worker directors. In fairness to the Minister, I said at the time that it was an imaginative piece of legislation which was produced in the best way possible, after serious consideration of the views of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, of the unions involved and of others. It was a tribute to the Minister's Department and to his advisers. I certainly want to stress that point. The Minister's advisers in this case can take a bow. We are very often critical of what they do but in this case they produced a very progressive piece of legislation.
During the debate on the Bill I expressed my delight, and thanked the Minister at the time, that he accepted two points I made, points which had been made to him by the trade unions. He brought into line the points on the period of office and on the method of election. He is back here today to bring forward the final change in the legislation which brings within the Schedule and, therefore, under the umbrella of the Act, An Post and Telecom Éireann. That is the way legislation should proceed. Legislation should proceed after due consultation, after proper argument as to what is meant and what is interpreted. There was a good discussion on the Bill in the House and it was the better for it being initiated in this House. Changes were made here without hassle and it was brought back to the Dáil as a much stronger piece of legislation. The legislation stands on its own and it does not need any help of the type that was proposed in the Dáil last month, which attempted to put greater pressure and more responsibility on a workforce who have already shown total commitment to their service and to their industry. In the legislation we have a model of what should take place in State, semi-State and, indeed, in the private sector. In response to the point made by Senator Hillery, I should tike to say that it is most regrettable — this is a point which I will be developing at some length later tonight — that in the Forestry Bill this model was not used.
That is a matter for the Forestry Bill and another Minister.
Hear, hear.
Yes, indeed, the "hear, hear" was from the man who raised the matter. He is from the other side of the House. I would expect that at least I would be allowed respond so that the record at least balances. It is regrettable that in setting up Coillte Teoranta we did not follow the same pattern.
I now want to look at, and read from the address by the then, and now, Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern, in presenting the Bill to the House on 3 February 1988. He said that the Bill translated into action the Government's commitment in the national programme to provide legislation to facilitate the introduction of worker participation in State enterprises. I welcomed that and I still welcome it. It is a matter of regret that other Departments seem to be out of touch with what is happening in the Department of Labour. It is with some regret that I say that I wish the Minister would circulate his speech to his Cabinet colleagues with a view to having it implemented. The changes proposed in the Schedule which we are discussing tonight should also be applied to new boards being set up. In short, before the Chair reads her note, this is welcome legislation. It means, in effect, that the changes which were sought by the trade union movement, which were sought by the unions involved and agreed to at all levels, are now enshrined in the legislation. It will take somebody who will feel badly disposed towards it to make any changes in it. I welcome it and the Minister, his Department, and his advisers, are to be congratulated on progressive legislation. I wish other Departments would be as progressive on other issues.
Before I call the Minister, Senator O'Toole, regarding your remark about the note, I do not need any notes to advise me how to deal with you.
For the record and so that the record will be right, I am easily dealt with. I am sweetness and light itself and all that is needed is the soft touch.
I know.
I should like to thank the Senators who spoke this evening and who were involved in the debate on the Bill. I concur with remarks made by Senator O'Toole, and other Senators that the bringing of this legislation to the Seanad in the first place was very useful. The debate, while fairly long, for a Bill was extremely useful and the amendments made were helpful. This is progressive legislation. We, in the Department, look forward to operating it. Some officials worked on it for a great number of years. I picked it up at a later stage. I hope those organisations, and various agencies, to whom we have now given the opportunity, whether it is at full board level or sub board level will take it seriously and that worker participation will be practised and followed through in the years to come in those enterprises. Already, we see it, not just in An Post and in Telecom Éireann but in other agencies, such as Aer Rianta where there is a new climate. It so happens that there is worker participation in some of the best agencies in the country. It is not just about arguments of trade unionists against employers but the partnership of trades unions working with employers right through the structures to try to make the enterprises better. There is an obligation on those organisations. It is important that the legislation is not left lying and that the organisations, who have now got something in legislation, take up the challenge and deal with it. I have no doubt that what Telecom Éireann and An Post have achieved by involving worker directors at sub board level and other levels can be followed and that will help the industrial relations climate in the years to come.
All the organisations, the agencies and the bodies listed in the Schedules, in the short term — certainly over the next few years — should be actively involved in worker participation at whatever level is listed for them in the Schedule.
Question put and agreed to.