asked the Taoiseach if he intends to introduce any legislation or other measures to provide assistance to those whose livelihoods are being threatened by the ongoing dispute between the management and unions in An Post.
Private Notice Questions. - An Post Industrial Dispute.
asked the Minister for Labour if he would make a statement about reported initiatives aimed at securing a settlement of the dispute in An Post.
I wish to reply to both Private Notice Questions. I will first reply to Deputy Bruton's question on behalf of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. I regret that the dispute now disrupting postal services is causing problems for users of the services. I must stress to the House that An Post are in serious financial difficulties — accumulated losses of the company had amounted to £13.8 million by the end of 1991 and a loss of £8.5 million is being projected for 1992. Remedial action is urgently required if An Post are to be put on a sound financial footing.
I heard that 16 months ago.
The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications is monitoring the whole position very closely and the Labour Relations Commission are seeking a means of resuming talks to resolve the dispute.
In reply to Deputy Ryan's question, I wish to state that in the course of discussions on the dispute with the Labour Relations Commission, differing interpretations of the findings of the tribunal arose. The Labour Relations Commission have, therefore, decided to seek elaboration from the tribunal on a number of issues. Once these elaborations have been received the Labour Relations Commission will consider what further action can be taken to help resolve the dispute. I can assure Deputies that I am keeping in close touch with the matter. I hope that the initiative by the Labour Relations Commission will lead to further negotiations.
Would the Minister agree that the continuance of this dispute is particularly difficult for very small businesses, especially those in the tourist trade who do not have faxes and other facilities available to them and who depend on bookings by post from overseas? Second, would he agree that the continuance of the dispute, coming as it does on the heels of the bank dispute, creates a problem of international credibility of industrial relations and reliability of services here? Would he further agree that from the point of view of both sides in this dispute, their common interests are being undermined by the damage being done to the image of reliability of the service and that if An Post are to become a profitable service there must be a large increase in the volume of business they transact? Any suggestions of unreliability in the service would damage the prospects of An Post as a whole achieving profitability.
I very much regret that hardships and difficulties are being experienced by certain sectors as a result of the continuance of the postal dispute. Second, it is unfortunate that the postal dispute has arisen so soon after the highly publicised dispute in the banking system. Structural problems which have arisen must be dealt with if the continued viability of An Post is to be maintained. Third, the social partners are still committed to resolving industrial relations problems which arise through the well-tried dispute settlement procedures that exist — the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. As I outlined in my reply, the Labour Relations Commission remain available to the parties and they are at present seeking to obtain elaboration from the Post Office Tribunal which considered all these issues so that they can go back to the parties to see if they can resume negotiations on that basis.
My main concern is to have the negotiations started again. Given that we are into the third week of this dispute, one that affects the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of people and has put at risk thousands of small businesses, I am appalled that contact has not been made today with a view to starting negotiations, as resolution of the dispute can only be secured through negotiations. Would the Minister accept that the resolution of this dispute has not been helped by the attitude adopted by the management of An Post in not paying the salaries of 2,600 employees and also by the one-sided stance taken by the Government, particularly by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, on this issue? In the national interest would the Minister accept his responsibility as Minister for Labour to intervene with a view to getting the parties together and ensure that they remain in negotiations until the dispute is resolved because it is not in the long term interests of anybody that the dispute should continue? I ask the Minister to intervene immediately.
Progress has been made at the labour relations commission in relation to a number of the issues in dispute.
It is escalating.
It will be tough to find a solution, but at least the problems have been narrowed down to a few specific issues which are being contested between the parties. If one were to resume negotiations immediately, because of the different interpretations that are being put on the tribunal recommendations, we would not be able to make much progress. The Labour Relations Commission who are handling the adjudication of the dispute, feel that they should get elaboration from the tribunal on their recommendations and that they would then have a better prospect——
It has been four weeks.
——of providing a basis upon which negotiations can recommence and can be concluded.
On a point of order. Is the ruling to allow one round of questions on this important issue based on precedent or on a specific Standing Order? Here we have a strike which is crippling the country and we are not being allowed to contribute to the questioning. Could I have some guidance?
Deputy O'Sullivan appreciates that it is a matter for the Chair to interpret what the Chair regards as being appropriate in any circumstance. The Deputy in whose name the question appeared has asked a supplementary. We could argue every day as to the gravity of a situation, but we are still on questions and there is other business to be dealt with for the day. If the Deputy is entitled to ask a question, so is every other Deputy in the House.
I accept the Chair's explanation, but there is no precedent for one round of questions. I would like to ask the Minister——
(Interruptions.)
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I did not get a satisfactory response from the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
I am in order. I am in possession and I am entitled to continue.
I put a question down.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Sullivan rose on a point of order.
I am questioning the ruling.
Deputy Bruton, Deputy O'Sullivan rose on a point of order.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Sullivan is entitled to raise a point of order, and no other Deputy should presume to displace him from being in order, until the Chair has done it, and the Chair will do it when he considers it appropriate.
I will be very brief. I am asking the Minister to account for the words and action of his colleague the Minister, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn.
Deputy——
(Interruptions.)
That is not a point of order.
Deputy O'Sullivan, you raised a point of order and I replied to it, you are now straying into disorderly areas.
(Interruptions.)
I ask you now to resume your seat. We will now have Deputy Bruton, on a point of order.
I just wanted to ask the Minister responsible for tourism if special arrangements might be made by Bord Fáilte to facilitate small guesthouses who do not have access to FAX in taking bookings, in view of the problems they are facing due to the postal dispute. Will Bord Fáilte be asked to investigate that problem?
I will pass on the Deputy's question. The feasibility of his suggestion is a matter for the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. It is not something on which I can comment.
The Minister is answering for her today.
I am answering the Deputy's Question.
On a point of order, as the Chair abandoned the ruling by allowing Deputy Bruton a second round of questioning, would I be in order to ask a very brief question?
There is no precedent.
(Interruptions.)
With regard to Deputy McCartan's allegation that decisions have been abandoned here, I will look after that. The Deputy wishes to raise a point of order?
The ruling given by the Chair was that there would be one round of questioning on this. The exception taken by Deputy O'Sullivan, quite correctly, is that whilst the one round should go around it should not exclude supplementary questions from Deputies like him and me who did not put questions down. That has been the precedent and it has been a long-standing practice in the House. The Chair ruled on that and then proceeded to allow a second round of questions from Deputy Bruton who had put the question down. It appears that the ruling does not apply. In that event I am merely asking for permission to ask the Minister a brief question.
No, Deputy, you do not have permission.
If that is to be the summary way in which I am to be treated by the Chair, upon what basis is it? What is the ruling of the Chair now?
As the Deputy indicated, questions were put down. Following the Chair accepting a point of order from Deputy O'Sullivan, the Deputy strayed. When calling him, I had refused to call Deputy Bruton.
(Interruptions.)
I do not make any apologies to the Deputy or anybody else for doing that. I am calling Deputy Ryan now, if he has a question to put.
On a point of order, it appears that a precedent has been set. For the sake of clarity will the Chair indicate what is his ruling?
The Deputy can pursue whatever clarity he wants but I am upholding the decision of the Chair.
The Chair has not. The Chair has departed from it. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has departed from the ruling of the Chair.
Each occupant of the Chair is entitled to interpret what is appropriate at any given time.
In line with the latitude the Chair has shown to Deputy Bruton, I would like to ask a second supplementary question. Has the Minister read the proposals issued by the trade unions on 13 May, and if so would he not accept that the proposal suggesting a reduction in overtime as recommended by the tribunal should constitute real grounds for negotiations on this matter and that it represents a movement on the part of the unions? Will the Minister move on this issue?
Some progress has been made at the Labour Relations Commission on some of the issues. There is not much progress on other issues because of different interpretations of some of the recommendations of the tribunal. The best way forward now is for the Labour Relations Commission to get elaboration from the tribunal on those aspects of their recommendations which are causing the problem at the moment. On foot of that clarification both sides should be invited in to see if matters can be progressed. We are all anxious to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible. The central issues have to be addressed and the viability of An Post has to be assured when the negotiations are concluded.