Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on this issue. It is important that the House discusses this public business and public asset. An Post is not some privatised industry owned by shareholders who hold positions throughout the EU and elsewhere. It is our company and Members of this and the other House have a direct responsibility to the people to ensure it is well managed, well run, profitable and, ultimately, provides the type of service about which Members have spoken, whether in rural or urban areas. Many of the arguments made in regard to rural areas can also be made about urban areas, including the lack of facilities, investment and of adequate funding for security and other issues. It is important the House debates this issue on a regular basis until we get it right.

In the past, I have been critical of trade unions in instances where they have been belligerent, have not embraced change and have been unable to see the bigger picture. I said one month ago, on the day the unions involved, including the Communications Workers' Union, brought their workers on to the street, that I fully supported their actions. I said so because the most blatant discrimination in respect of any aspect of this issue was that meted out to An Post workers in regard to the non-payment of the Sustaining Progress pay deal. As my colleague, Senator Finucane, said, last year all the workers in An Post, who do not earn large sums of money, had to forgo the 5% pay increase due to them under the partnership agreement while this year, they have had to forgo a 2% increase. What other group of workers would accept that their gross income would not increase by 7% to which they were entitled under the pay agreement? What other group of workers would just take that on the chin? They have every right to protest and to cause mayhem in terms of lobbying throughout the country. They also have every right to take this matter to these Houses of Parliament and to state their case clearly because it is a justifiable one.

Not only has this affected the existing workers in An Post but it has affected pensioners. It is absolutely scandalous that pensioners on very meagre incomes have had to put up with this. Senator Kitt and other colleagues have asked who is responsible. As I said a month ago, I make no apology for saying that responsibility lies with botched management. How is it that a company with such dramatic business activity in a country with such economic growth as that we have seen in the past eight years and which has been sustained year on year — in some years, there was almost double digit growth — cannot turn around a profit? How is it possible that in one year, as the Minister of State said, losses of €43 million could be chalked up? I got the answer last night when I saw the current chief executive officer of An Post, Mr. Curtin, on "Oireachtas Report" give a most appalling performance to a committee of the Oireachtas and admit that he had made no effort to deal on a one to one basis with the genuine concerns of trade unions in recent months. That is a scandal.

This is public business and it is our company. We have a direct responsibility to our constituents who put us here to stand up and say that. In any process of modernisation, there is change and it is difficult for people. However, the workers of An Post have had to put up with this for far too long. In my constituency, we saw what happened to SDS on the Naas Road. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say that any redundancies there will be voluntary. I was also glad to hear that all these matters will be before the Labour Court shortly. However, someone must take responsibility for the inability to turn this company around in an economic environment in which such amounts of money have been made by the business sector in recent years. I feel very strongly about that.

The response of the Government, particularly that of the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been a hands-off one. Much more needs to be done even at EU level. I note the Minister of State said the EU directive in this area gives all EU citizens the right to a national postal delivery service. This country, in particular, needs this service because of its geography and its peripheral location on the western seaboard of the EU. If subvention is required to turn the company around and make it profitable, then we need to work at EU level to make those arguments where it counts. There is little point in stating there is an EU directive in this area that guarantees a nationalised postal delivery service if, as a small country, we are not entitled to fund a company which needs to be turned around from time to time.

I return to the central point I wish to make on behalf of the workers, many of whom live in my constituency. I congratulate them on bringing this matter to my attention, although we all have a responsibility in this regard. If any other semi-State company had been botched in the same way as this company has been, we would call for the head and, indeed, the entire board of that company to resign. The situation must be turned around. I support the industrial relations mechanism of the State in terms of trying to help that process. Ultimately, however, support will have to be sought through the EU if we are to put subventions into the company to ensure its profitability even in the short to medium term.

I support the workers in this case. It is not a stance I have always taken in regard to a group of public sector workers but the An Post workers case is justifiable. I ask the Government to abandon its hands-off approach, deal with the issue directly and ensure that the supports are in place, particularly through the EU, to return the company to profitability.