At the outset I should like to say that when I intimated to-day my desire to raise this matter on the Adjournment I was informed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he had an appointment in Clonmel to-night. Unfortunately, however, it would be impossible for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow evening and I thought it was, in the public interest, very important that it should be raised before the Easter Recess. It was not my intention to embarrass the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in any way.
To-day, Deputy O. Flanagan asked a question of the Minister for Post and Telegraphs and he referred to a letter written recently with reference to grievous overcharges imposed by the Department. Deputy O. Flanagan went on to say that, in view of the fact that the Department had admitted serious overcharges, the Minister should advise the general public to keep their own check on all calls made. The Minister, in the course of his reply, failed to deal adequately with that very important question. The Minister endeavoured to give the impression that the difficulty regarding overcharging was confined solely to subscribers at the Dundrum exchange.
It is most important that every subscriber on the series beginning 98 should know there were grievous technical faults in the Dundrum exchange all throughout the year 1960— so grievous in some cases that it has been brought to my notice that every subscriber ought to take up his charges with the proper authorities. The Minister undoubtedly gave the impression that these were confined to Dundrum.
Information at my disposal indicates that similar excessive charges are being levied at several exchanges throughout the length and breadth of Dublin. A subscriber in the Sutton area, whose exchange has the series beginning 32, points out that in the January-March period of 1960 she made 30 calls and was charged for 259—an 800 per cent. excess charge. When she asked for a refund or a reduction on that she was refused and received a threatening letter that she would be disconnected.
In the period April to June, 1960, the same subscriber, on keeping a check of all calls made, was able to establish she had made 18 calls only but she was charged for 290 calls. A refund was refused and she paid the account only because the alternative was disconnection. In the July-September period of the same year the same subscriber made 29 calls and was charged for 58. It would appear there would have been some check made of the recording equipment at the exchange in the last case and there was accordingly a reduction in the overcharge.
The interesting thing about this subscriber is that in August of that year she went away for 14 days and before going on holidays she had the reading of the meter checked at the exchange. She locked the house and tied up the equipment, yet when she came home, although the house had not been entered, it appeared from the exchange that 60 calls had been recorded there in the interval and when she refused to pay the phone was disconnected. Later on, when she paid for the calls she had never made, her phone was reconnected. Another interesting thing about this was that there was no charge made by the Department for reconnecting the phone.
Another case has been brought to my notice in relation to the exchange which begins with the series 61. There, the average charge over a long period for each quarter was £20 and recently, for no reason known to the establishment concerned, a bill for £33 was received. Another case has arisen. I am not at the moment in a position to release the location of it. A person who suspected that he was being overcharged was going away for a long period. He tied up the telephone and put a seal on it in the presence of two witnesses. When he returned after a period of some months the equipment was still tied up and the seal was unbroken but there was a bill awaiting him from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. He asked that officials from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs attend at his premises, which they did. In the presence of these officials the seal was broken. Then, to the astonishment of the officials, the bill was produced.
Another subscriber on the series beginning "92" has been able to establish that in a recent quarter there was an overcharge of 33? per cent. Another subscriber in the series beginning "68" fundamentally believes that she has been overcharged by as much as 50 per cent.
In his reply today the Minister gave the opinion to this House that the account between the Department and the person who in a public-spirited way raised the matter in the Press, had now been settled. Yet, the Minister must know that that person still maintains that in relation to the last two accounts furnished there are overcharges. One overcharge, he maintains, is in respect of 95 calls and the other is in respect of 39 calls.
The general picture shows that the recording equipment, even if it is as the Minister alleges the best available, is very, very faulty. It is so faulty, indeed, that I believe the Department of Posts and Telegraphs can boast a profit on its telephone account simply because of the serious degree of overcharging which there is.
There are several members of this House who have come to me since this matter was raised by Deputy Flanagan today. Four members, in fact, have come to me to give their own personal experience of overcharging in respect of their own accounts. The Minister gave the impression that there were only about 100 complaints per quarter and the effort on the part of the Department to ease public uneasiness is to say, "Well, if there was any increase or any substantial increase there would probably be a complaint from a subscriber".
The fact of the matter is that in a bill which would cover, say, 200 calls, there could easily be an excess charge in respect of 50 calls and the average subscriber would not think of checking because he would have no reason not to have confidence in the departmental equipment. The sorry situation as disclosed in a public-spirited way by Mr. Plunkett is sufficient to give every telephone subscriber food for very serious thought. The whole matter is so serious that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs ought to make available free of charge recording meters on every telephone.
We are told that the charge for recording meters on private telephones would be a rental of 18/- per quarter but if the few cases which have come to my notice are in any way typical of what is happening it would appear that it would be well worth the while of the average subscriber to pay this rental of 18/- a quarter because of the serious overcharges which have come to light. These overcharges have come to light only because people kept a check. It is common knowledge, of course, that the vast majority of telephone subscribers do not keep a check on either their private or business phone. In the case of a private phone if there is an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of calls the average subscriber will not notice it or will presume that the reason is that the wife is phoning the grocer or butcher more often than formerly. The amount of improper charging becomes a serious matter in relation to large firms where the quarterly bill may be as much as £100 or £150. When you calculate the errors which we know of in relation to any large account the matter becomes exceedingly serious indeed.
As I understand it, no check is kept on individual meters unless and until there is a complaint from a subscriber and then the subscriber may or may not have a check on the meter all depending upon the whim of the official who receives the complaint in the first instance. That is very, very bad.
I do not want to digress but it would appear from another reply to-day that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is under-staffed from the engineering point of view and that that is one of the reasons why the various telephone exchanges are recording wrongly. I appreciate that this equipment is very sensitive and that a small electric impulse causes a meter to turn over and to register a call. There have been cases, I am informed, where two adjoining meters have been recording at the same time, that is to say, a person dials a number like 97863 and not only will the call record on 97863 but will also record on 97864 and that that is one of the reasons why there is over-charging—the meters are recording on the double.
All this clearly shows that the public ought to be warned to keep a very careful check on their calls. I am aware that the Minister's reply may well be that nobody knows who is using the phone, that when the man is out the mistress may be using the phone, that when the mistress is out the maid or the children may be using it. That is all very well but there are not maids and children in all houses where there are complaints of the type which I have disclosed here this evening.
It may be said by the Minister that there are 100,000 subscribers and only 600 complaints a year. I do not think that is due to the fact that the equipment is recording accurately. I believe it is due to the fact that most people are prepared to accept the recording as disclosed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is quite apparent from the evidence of Mr. Plunkett over a year that there are serious errors on many exchanges. After all, the Department was on notice that the man in question was keeping a very careful check on them and one could be quite sure that the departmental officials were up morning, noon and night watching that man's meter and that no stone was left unturned to make sure that there would be no errors in his accounts in future.
There were suggestions that apart from the accounts there were clerical errors. I cannot believe there were clerical errors in relation to the account of that man who had been complaining consistently over such a long period. There were no clerical errors. You can be quite sure that if five persons read the meter, 10 persons checked the account. The meter was recording wrongly on a new exchange, a modern exchange, where there was the most up-to-date equipment. If that was recording wrongly, it is quite reasonable to believe that in the older exchanges in Dublin and elsewhere the meters were also recording wrongly.
I know of a subscriber in Lusk who before being put on the automatic exchange was in the happy position that he received no telephone account for six months. He was in the fortunate situation that his phone was not recording at all.
All this shows a shocking degree of laxity, a shocking degree of indifference by a public Department which should be meticulous in the manner in which it administers its accounts. Therefore, people need to be warned most solemnly that they must keep a check on their telephone calls and I would exhort each and every telephone subscriber to query the account if he has any reason whatsoever to doubt that the account is right.
A most important matter arises, that is, the attitude of the Department in the light of the knowledge they have that their equipment is faulty, again allowing for the fact that it may be the best available. Considering that they know it is faulty, their attitude of summarily dismissing claims and disconnecting telephones is deplorable, to say the least of it. No private concern, no business man or woman, could afford to treat his clients in the manner in which the Department of Posts and Telegraphs treat the public.
I appreciate the need to collect accounts which are properly due, but where a reputable citizen legitimately queries an account which has been running at an average of £5 per quarter over a long number of years, it is most high-handed, improper, unfair and discourteous for the Department to refuse to give such a claim proper consideration and to insist upon immediate payment with the alternative of immediate disconnection. We are aware that that has been the policy and is the policy of the Department at the present time.
I would suggest that there should be a reasonable approach to this matter. In such cases the reasonable approach would be to insist upon payment of the average amount and to leave over the amount that is in doubt, that is controversial, until there has been a proper and thorough check over at least another quarter of the meter in question by the Department, together with a check by the subscriber at his or her residence. In such cases the Department could easily attach to the telephone of such subscriber a meter which would record calls, which could be checked against the exchange. We know that in relation to these matters civil servants are acting properly, if rather high-handedly, in their discourteous approach to the public——
