Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy R. Burke).

Mr. Cooney

Before this debate concludes there are a few points I should like to raise. The Minister made a lot of play, possibly justifiably, on the commercial type operation his Department carry out. I have had cause to comment on this in previous years in so far as the Minister claims that he runs his Department on commercial lines, but many of the norms which one finds in a commercial undertaking, as such, are absent from the activities of his Department.

This is particularly evident in regard to the telephone service. This, quite obviously, is not run on commercial lines because, if it were run on commercial lines, a lucrative service such as this, a high profit yielding service, would not be starved of capital. The Minister will have to assert his undoubted powers of persuasion in the councils of the Cabinet to ensure that for his Department and, in particular, for the telephone service the starvation of capital which has existed up to now will no longer be permitted to continue.

It would appear from my reading of his speech and the notes which he circulated to us, that the amount which he states has been provided by the Government for investment in the telephone service does not represent the true position. It is not the net amount which is available in so far as he does not take into account the large amount of interest which his Department credit against this sum. Having regard to the tremendous need for vastly increased investment in the expansion of the telephone system, the Department should be relieved, or should relieve themselves, of any obligation of having to repay interest on advances made for capital purposes under the Telephone Acts.

This is particularly so in view of the impending arrival of Ericsson's factory. I am very pleased indeed to see that it has been decided to locate this factory in Athlone—an extremely wise decision. It points to the good sense of the management of that concern that they have picked such a pleasant place to locate. I thank the Minister for having come to an arrangement with them guaranteeing the purchasing of a certain amount of equipment. This was one of the attractions for them to set up here. It is not an exclusive arrangement and, quite naturally, it would not want to be. There would be dangers in that direction. I am sure that a guaranteed order of the type indicated by the Minister was a very substantial bait in deciding that firm to locate in Ireland.

Now that the decision has been made to purchase to a large degree from them the firm have responded by agreeing to locate here. Our telephone system still needs vast investment which, in turn, implies very substantial purchases of equipment. The fact that this equipment will now be manufactured in this country with all the economic benefits that will bring is an extra reason for the Minister to urge on his colleagues in the Government to make available the money he requires to bring the telephone system up to date.

The increasing backlog in terms of potential subscribers wanting connection is very disturbing. Quite frankly, it defies understanding that a service which is potentially so remunerative and which is in such demand would not be provided. There may be occasional exceptions but, by and large, every telephone which is installed results in a profit to the State. I would urge the Minister to give the people the telephones for which there is an obvious demand. This would produce more income for his Department and more returns to the Exchequer for investment.

If, as the Minister says, the Department is run on a commercial basis, the first priority must be to provide lots of capital in areas where capital can be well spent. It is a false claim by the Minister to suggest commercial standards when the most lucrative aspect is starved of capital. I think the Minister will agree with me on that. The question now is who gets what of the resources of the nation but if the Minister can say that he has something profitable and which is desirable socially and economically, especially since the basic equipment is now being manufactured in the country, he will have a very strong case for increased capital allocation. I would not worry too much about the final appearance of the Department's accounts but even if the Minister were to ask to be relieved of the interest repayments on the telephone allocation a considerable amount of extra capital would be available. I am encouraged by the fact that Ericssons have decided to locate in Athlone.

As a Deputy from that area, I can say that the news brought much satisfaction because we have suffered more than our share of industrial redundancies. I hope the factory can get under way very quickly and that it will expand to full employment and production in the shortest possible time. The Government can assist in this regard by increasing the scope of their investment in the telephone service, thereby increasing the demand for the products of this new factory and the higher the demand the more employment will be provided. I have no doubt that the factory will be successful and I wish all the people who will come to work there a very happy time in Athlone.

Another aspect of the Minister's operations in which his claim to a commercial concern does not stand up is in relation to the counter services provided in the post offices. In many ways these are hidebound by excessive and old-fashioned regulations and are antiquated in their approach to modern business. One example of this which became very apparent during the unfortunate bank strike a few years ago was that at that time many people, such as commercial travellers who had an obligation to collect money in the course of their employment and forward it to their employers used the Post Office services but I understand that the largest sum which they could send in one lot was £100. This meant that in the case of a traveller who would be sending say, £700, he had to buy seven different orders and pay the poundage on each. That was not the worst feature, though, because the official behind the counter was involved seven times on one such operation, whereas if there was some discretion or if there was no financial limit on the amount of an order that could be purchased, the Post Office might take some business from the commercial banks in regard to that type of operation. The more money the Post Office can have on hands at any particular time, the greater the benefit to the nation as a whole.

The Post Office deposit accounts, too, are administered in an excessively rigid fashion and compare very unfavourably with the facilities provided by the banks to those wishing to maintain deposit accounts. If one deposits money in the bank in the morning, he can go back in the afternoon and withdraw the entire sum without any formality, whereas if a person opens a deposit account with the Post Office and deposits say, £100 at 11 a.m. but finds in the afternoon that because of some sudden demand he needs the money, he will not be able to withdraw it because it is necessary to give two days' notice to the Post Office. This regulation inhibits people from using the Post Office saving facilities. I understand, also, that there is a restriction on the number of withdrawals that can be made at a particular time. Occasionally it happens that people who have invested in a Post Office savings account through the savings book method find it necessary to withdraw money suddently, perhaps coming up to a week-end, but because of the rule of procedure a person cannot withdraw his own money without giving certain notice. That is a regulation that must be eased if the Post Office savings bank is to become competitive and fulfil the function for which it is intended.

One area in which great improvement could be made in that regard would be the easing of the rules regarding deposits and withdrawls from savings accounts while at the same time using the Post Office counter staffs for the purpose of increasing the public's interest in the facilities offered by the Post Office in the same way as the banks now have productivity arrangements with their staffs. I have found during the past year or so that individual members of bank staffs— not always senior members—show a great desire to attract business for their employers. I understand that they are on some sort of productivity arrangement which ensures that they are paid in respect of business which they bring in. Post Office officials should be given a similar incentive to sell the Post Office facilities to the public. At present it is frustrating for senior officials to see good business pass the Post Office simply because there is no incentive for them to go after it. Very often the officials can do nothing in this regard because they are bound by old rules which would inhibit people from using the facilities. Certainly, in regard to the savings bank if there was an incentive for officials to encourage people to invest, there would be vastly increased investment by the public and the Post Office could compete with the commercial banks for deposits maintained by way of deposit accounts subject to easy depositing and withdrawals.

The rate of interest offered by the Post Office compares very favourably with that offered by the commercial banks. I would ask the Minister to institute some sort of study into the commercial counter operations of his Department and ensure that old regulations which no longer serve any good purpose be scrapped and that there be no red tape so as to ensure that the proper use would be made of the experience and skill of officials behind the counters of post offices throughout the country. Many of the rules restricting their conduct should be examined in the light of the twentieth century. In many cases these rules have taken on a divine air. In many instances there are not only double checks but treble and quadruple checks. While this indicates careful accounting which is commendable, it involves a waste of expensive manpower without any correlative benefit to the service. They are an irritant so far as the morale of staff is concerned.

If the Department is to be run on commercial lines, commercial criteria should be applied where the public are met across the counter in regard to the selling of the services available. Secondly, in regard to making the Post Office attractive for staff to sell these services, there should be an incentive arrangement for them.

The only other point I wish to make is to compliment the Department on the postal delivery service which is first-class but I think it is a pity that in Dublin it was discontinued on Saturdays. I hope that will not happen throughout the country. I know there is difficulty in arranging a five-day week for postmen and at the same time maintaining deliveries on Saturdays. I do not know how that will be overcome but I would ask the Minister to provide rural postmen with a five-day week.

Suggestions have been made for working extra hours during the five days in order to have the sixth and seventh days off, but the hours I heard suggested are altogether unrealistic. It would be unfair to ask postmen to work an excessively long day in order to have Saturday off. There will have to be another look at this problem but I would ask the Minister not to sacrifice Saturday deliveries. This is an aspect of the Post Office service which cannot be conducted on entirely commercial lines. It is a State service which has to be provided, even though it might not be a viable service in terms of commercial criteria.

Postmen up and down the country, particularly in rural Ireland, who are not mechanised, perform a wonderful service because this is a job involving considerable hardship, particularly during winter months. When one sees a postman on a wild and windy morning trundling a bike up a rugged bohereen one appreciates the service he is giving to the community. The Minister should try to ease his lot by giving him a day off. It gives me pleasure to pay a compliment to these men for the service they have provided. I hope commercial considerations, where they are not applicable, will not be used as an excuse for diminishing that service.

I ask the Minister to end the ridiculous situation of having a lucrative service like the telephone service starved of capital, to use the counter services to their fullest by making them modern, by encouraging the staff to sell them and to ease the lot of postmen outside Dublin by introducing the five-day week but at the same time not sacrificing the Saturday delivery. I know it may be difficult and expensive to do this but for the sake of the morale of the service and in recognition of the services which rural postmen render to the community I do not think we would grudge the expenditure involved.

The other feature of this debate has been the attention paid to Radio Telefís Éireann. A lot has been said on that and I have no doubt a lot more will continue to be said. I am sure a lot will be said by the Minister when he closes this debate. One point I would ask the Minister to deal with in regard to RTE and the dismissal of the authority is to explain why, when asked for an interpretation of the directive that would meet the Government's wishes, it was refused. This was unjust to the authority. They took the view, and it appeared to me from reading the directive, a justifiable view, that the wording of it left it open to various interpretations.

It was perfectly reasonable that the person to whom it was given would ask the person who gave it: "What precisely does it mean? Which of these interpretations do you want?" In the absence of a clear answer it was contrary to natural justice to dismiss the authority for failing to implement something which defied precise interpretation. The Minister should specify why he and the Government did not spell out to the authority what they meant by the directive. One had sympathy with the Government at the time the directive was issued. They had public opinion behind them at that stage but this has now gone because of the way in which the authority were dismissed. It is quite clear to the public that the authority were unfairly dismissed because of the lack of willingness on the part of the Government to explain precisely what was meant by the directive.

I will be disappointed if the Minister does not deal with the Government's failure to explain the directive to the authority. It is not sufficient to say that it should have been clear to the authority. The authority were composed of eminent people who found it was not clear. It will not be an answer on the part of the Minister to say that it was perfectly clear, that they knew well what they were at. The Minister will have to explain why he did not go a step farther and say: "This is what I see it means and this is what I want you to see it means". If the Minister did that and the authority then said that they disagreed and they would not enforce it that way, the Minister's action might have been justified. He did not go that far and he has left this question mark.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. G. Collins)

Ba mhaith liom bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a ghlach páirt san díospóireacht. Tríd is tríd bhí formhór na hóráidí cúntach éifeachtach agus ba mhaith liom, go háirithe, thar cheann fhoireann na Roinne, buíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a mhol obair na fóirne sa Roinn. Tá mé buíoch freisin de na Teachtaí a thaispeán a ndea-mhéinn dom agus a ghuí rath orm i gcomhlíonadh mo chuid dualgaisí mar Aire.

Comhartha sea é ar an dtábhacht a bhaineann le h-obair na Roinne agus ar an spéis atá ag an bpoball san obair sin gur chuaigh an chéad chainteoir den Fhreasúra, an Teachta R. Burke, chomh doimhin sin san scéal gur labhair sé ar feadh cheithre uaire agus 46 nóiméad. Measaim go mbuann óráid den fhaid sin an chraobh agus déanaim comgháirdeas leis an Teachta. Mar sin féin, ní thógfaidh sé orm é má deirim go bhfuil súil agam go mbeidh an chraobh sin aige go ceann i bhfad agus nach mbeidh éinne eile ag iarraidh í a thógaint uaidh.

I congratulate Deputy Richard Burke on his appointment as spokesman for the principal Opposition Party on the affairs of my Department. He certainly made a remarkable speech extending to four hours and 46 minutes. In acknowledgment of the great labour which he obviously must have devoted to the preparation of this lengthy and detailed speech I should like, other things apart, if only as courtesy, to reply at length but Deputy Burke will, I hope, recognise that I cannot, within a reasonable time, deal with all the points made by him while replying also to other Deputies and deal with other events that have occurred since the debate on this Estimate was initiated. However, I shall do my very best to reply to the points made by him.

I particularly appreciate Deputy Richard Burke's disarming admission that because of the fact of being in Opposition he could not know what was going on. This is certainly very understandable and accounts for the fact that in many of his comments in regard to the telephone service particularly Deputy Burke was unfortunately very much astray. I say that without any wish to score a political point but it will be necessary, nevertheless, for me, for the purpose of the record, to correct the Deputy in regard to some matters of importance, on which he very clearly was misinformed.

Deputy R. Burke referred to our accounting system and, understandably enough, coming as he did new to the scene, was a little confused about the position. Let me put him right about the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the effect that the accounting system of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is on a receipts and payments basis which is designed primarily to serve the process of parliamentary control of expenditure, but does not facilitate the production of an income and expenditure account and a balance sheet. The Deputy felt that this comment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General had been made by way of criticism. This is certainly not so. It is a statement of fact, and whatever changes may be made in the Department's accounting system as a result of further studies, it will continue to be necessary to produce accounts on a receipts and payments basis for the purpose of parliamentary control of expenditure.

Deputy R. Burke went on to make various comments about the Department's commercial accounts which are prepared to show the position of the Department's services on a trading basis. Let me assure the Deputy that, by and large, the Department's commercial accounts as prepared heretofore serve very adequately the purpose for which they were intended. They give guidelines for policy making and show the extent of the profit and loss on the Department's main services. I have no doubt but that they could be improved upon. If Deputy R. Burke who dealt with this subject was in touch with developments in Britain over the past few years and the continuing developments there, he would be aware that the institute of accountants there are by no means satisfied with the innumerable forms of accounts produced by large commercial organisations in Britain. An attempt is being made to introduce some broad principles of standardisation. At the moment the presentation of company accounts varies widely. There are few areas in which accountants are unanimous as to the best form of preparation of accounts.

As I have stated in my introductory speech, the Department have employed a firm of consultant accountants to look over the whole accounting system of the Department, not because it is seriously deficient but because I believe that it is a good thing that we should have the benefit at this stage of an independent, fresh appraisal from outside of our whole accounting system.

Deputy R. Burke also inquired about the breakdown of the Department's fixed assets. A statement of fixed assets is published annually in the commercial accounts. This gives an analysis under five headings— telegraphs, telephone, accommodation, plant, lands and buildings. The Deputy suggested that without a revaluation of the Department's assets it was impossible to form any true opinion of the Department's financial performance. I regret to be unable to agree with the Deputy on the need for a revaluation of the Department's assets. The major part of the Department's capital is employed in the telephone service. Out of a total expenditure on this service which will approach £110 million by the end of the current financial year, nearly £90 million will have been spent since 1960, and £14 million of the remainder in the previous ten years. In my opinion, revaluation of the assets after so short a period would serve no useful purpose.

Deputy R. Burke and other Deputies expressed the view that it was a great pity that we had not in 1972 commemorated the 50th anniversary of the deaths of great men who died in 1922. Deputy R. Burke instanced Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins but generously said that he would not exclude the commemoration of important figures of other traditions in this regard. He thought it would have shown a certain degree of maturity if we had done this. The Government decision to issue one stamp in commemoration of all the patriot dead of the 1922-23 period seems to show even greater maturity. It avoids any revival of old quarrels and, perhaps, even more importantly, it commemorates not merely the great people but all the others on both sides who gave their lives for what they believed in, even if they earned little fame by doing so.

Deputy R. Burke referred to the recommendations concerning my Department which were contained in the Devlin Report on Reorganisation of the Public Services. Deputy Moore and Deputy Hogan O'Higgins suggested that there was need to review the functions of the Department. Deputy R. Burke dealt extensively with the points made in the Devlin Report. There is no need for me to reiterate them now. The fundamental conclusion of the report was that the status of the Department as a Department of State should not be changed. As Deputies are aware, the Government have already taken certain steps in regard to the main recommendations in the report. A Public Services Department is being set up. It has been decided that the separation of the policy making from their day-to-day execution will be carried out on an experimental basis in three Departments. My Department is not one of those involved.

The Post Office have a large measure of freedom on commercial lines at present. They have wide delegated powers from the Minister for Finance to encourage expenditure within broad approved limits. However, as a Department of State, they have to function under certain constraints which do not apply to semi-State bodies. To what extent changes might be made within the present structure of the Post Office as a Government Department to enable them to work more efficiently and effectively in providing commercial type services without going so far as to set up a Post Office semi-State body is a matter which the Government will consider in due course in the light of developments in regard to the Devlin recommendations.

Deputy Moore suggested that savings services might be handed over to some other body. Savings services are the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. The Post Office make facilities available for the day-to-day operation of the service. It is for the Minister for Finance to consider whether any changes in the operation of these services are desirable.

Deputy R. Burke wished to know more about an experiment in balanced delivery in the Blackrock area. The Deputy seemed to be quite well briefed about this matter already. The position in Blackrock is typical of that in many areas where there are two deliveries. Postings are generally made in the evenings. The volume of mail on hands in the morning for delivery is very great. At present we endeavour to deliver all of it on the first post, although many items such as printed papers are not of urgent character. In Blackrock about 88 per cent of correspondence has been delivered on the first delivery and only 12 per cent on the second delivery. The staff in the area agreed to co-operate in an experiment to bring the volume of correspondence in the two deliveries more into balance. Under the balanced delivery system all available first-class correspondence is taken out on the first delivery as well as second-class correspondence for those addresses for which there are also first-class items. Second-class correspondence for addresses for which there is no first-class correspondence is held over for the second delivery. All available items of first- and second-class are delivered on the second delivery.

The object of this experiment is to improve efficiency and productivity in a way which will not inconvenience the public to any material extent and which will maintain, if not improve, staff conditions. Operationally, the results in Blackrock have been satisfactory and I am hopeful we will be able to agree with the staff soon on definite proposals for the implementation of balanced delivery on a permanent basis. The possibilities of introducing the system elsewhere are also being considered. The Deputy mentioned some postmen having now only an hour break in their duties instead of a three hour break as formerly. I think it is a case that staff do not like a long spreadover period of duty.

Mr. Tully

The spreadover is not liked by anybody.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy also commented that letters posted in Dublin early in the morning under the new arrangements would not be delivered in the Blackrock area the same day. In practice there are very few such letters, and arrangements may be made to deal with these. Deputy Burke inquired about costly postal deliveries in rural areas. In many areas the cost of delivery exceeds the 4p paid for the stamp. In some places the cost of delivery on a postman's route would on average be 15p, 18p and even as high as 20p per item.

Mr. Tully

Did the Minister ever try to estimate what it would cost to supply sewerage and water to those areas? This is as much a social service as they are.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Burke spoke of deliveries in the Dublin area. There has been no change in the standard of the postal service in the Dublin area. The Deputy mentioned late deliveries. While every effort is made to perform deliveries on schedule, I am sure it will be accepted that having regard to the size of the Dublin delivery force and the necessity to make immediate provision for sick and other absences by staff on overtime or by staff who are unfamiliar with delivery routes concerned, it is inevitable that some instances of late or delayed deliveries will occur.

Deputy Belton suggested that the half day in post offices should be staggered so that the public could transact business on all days of the week except Sunday. Offices staffed by the Department do not close for a half day. Sub-post offices close for a half day weekly and where there is more than one such office in a centre the half days are usually on different days of the week. In Dublin, the majority of sub-post offices take their half day on Saturday but there is at least one office open in each area of the city on that day.

Deputy Tully referred to possible danger arising from sharp edges of letter boxes in local authority houses. This matter was looked into after the Deputy raised it previously. I am told there does not appear to be a general problem and no particular difficulties or complaints have come to notice recently.

Mr. Tully

I would remind the Minister that on the last occasion he complained he had cut his finger.

Mr. G. Collins

That was just a personal experience. We often get our fingers cut and sometimes we get our fingers burnt.

Mr. Tully

I was about to ask the Minister if he had got his fingers burnt.

Mr. G. Collins

I would not say mine were burnt.

Mr. Desmond

Singed.

Mr. G. Collins

Not even singed. I was pleased to hear Deputy Coughlan praise the postal service in the Limerick area. I am gratified to know that he has not had a single complaint about it in five or six years. Deputy Begley referred to a specific case of alleged delay due to interference with post in the south Kerry area. He has been in correspondence with me about this and he will know that official inquiries did not support allegations which he made. If there are further points he wishes to bring to my notice, I will be more than glad to have them examined for him.

Deputy Tully referred to difficulties in postal deliveries which can be caused by similarities in street names. He asked whether the attention of local authorities had been drawn to the matter. In general, it can be said that the problem arises only occasionally, and the Deputy may be assured that where it does the local authority concerned are quickly contacted. My Department have also been in touch with the Department of Local Government on the general question of clear and individual identification of new houses.

Deputy Hogan O'Higgins spoke of losses in the post and mentioned in particular postcards sent by farmers to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in connection with the beef incentive bonus scheme. The number of items lost in the post is very small. It is certainly negligible in relation to the 460 million postal items handled in a year. In so far as the items mentioned by the Deputy are concerned, the Department do not appear to have any complaints. However, because this was raised here by Deputy Hogan O'Higgins, it is being looked into. She also referred to losses and delays in regard to items posted in Leinster House. Six posting points are provided in Leinster House and there are collections at 11 a.m., 4 p.m., 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., with a further collection at 10.30 p.m. on sitting days. Correspondence collected from Leinster House is given special treatment in the Central Sorting Office and should secure a high quality of service. If the Deputy supplies me with details of the items she mentioned, I will have the matter investigated.

Deputy Belton expressed concern about overloading of postmen in developing areas. I can assure the Deputy that where building development is taking place delivery needs are kept under particularly close review and additional delivery staff are authorised where required.

Mr. Tully

Authorisation is one thing, supplying the staff is another.

Mr. G. Collins

They are always supplied where we consider they are necessary. We might differ on that.

Mr. Tully

It takes two men to do the job in the summer and one man in the winter. That is the sort of thing that is happening.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Begley mentioned the absence of Dingle and Cahirciveen from the postal addresses of Dunquin and Ballinskelligs and the inclusion instead of Tralee and Killarney. Mail for Dunquin and Ballinskelligs is handled at Tralee and Killarney, respectively, and these names must, therefore, appear on the postal addresses. Tralee and Killarney are the most suitable offices for the handling of mail for Dunquin and Ballinskelligs from the point of view of efficiency and economy.

Deputy Oliver Flanagan was not satisfied with the postal services being provided in the midlands. I am convinced that they compare favourably with those provided throughout the country and that they are of the highest standard. The Deputy referred particularly to letters from Mountmellick to Rahan which he said took four days and from Mountmellick and Rahan to Leinster House which he said took two days. In either case, letters posted in time for night mail despatch should secure delivery the next working day. If the Deputy can furnish details of specific complaints, they will, of course, be investigated. He also referred to some recent postal changes in Mountmellick. The Deputy had a Parliamentary question on the matter and I do not propose to go into detail at this point. I can assure the Deputy and other Deputies in the constituency that the postal services provided in Mountmellick continue to be of a high standard and compare very favourably with those in similar towns.

Deputy Oliver Flanagan also mentioned overloading of letter boxes in built-up areas. In urban areas the practise is to provide either pillar boxes or wall boxes according to the volume of traffic likely to be posted. Pillar boxes are usually provided in commercial and densely populated urban areas where the level of posting is high. Posting needs in suburban areas are, as a rule, adequately catered for by wallboxes. The capacity of boxes to take the volume of traffic offering is kept under review and remedial action is taken where necessary. Overloading sometimes occurs as the result of large or bulky items— which to my mind should be handed in at the post office if this is possible —being forced into letterboxes and preventing further posting.

I was more than surprised to hear that Deputy Flanagan was of the opinion that motorisation of rural postal services was resulting in a general reduction in standards. As on other things, he is on his own on that as well. This is not my understanding of the overall position. In general, motorisation is planned on the basis of maintaining standards to the maximum extent possible. A motorised delivery post usually incorporates two pedal cycle posts, and on motorisation delivery is completed earlier than before. However, because of the amalgamation of delivery routes there will be some places where somewhat later delivery cannot be avoided and these are usually confined to sparsely populated areas. I need not remind Deputies again of the economics of rural postal delivery and of the contribution which motorisation is making towards reducing costs.

Deputies Moore and Treacy referred to the need to make sub-post offices more attractive and to improve facilities for the public at such offices. The provision and maintaining of sub-post office accommodation is the responsibility of the sub-postmaster. Sub-post offices are inspected regularly and attention is drawn to the need to improve the appearance of offices where this is considered necessary. The adequacy and suitability of accommodation offered are taken into account when new sub-post office appointments are being made. Complaints received are few and have been largely concerned with overcrowding in certain suburban Dublin offices. These cases of overcrowding do not, however, reflect on the general adequacy of the accommodation but are simply related to exceptional conditions which arise on certain days, for example, on the first Tuesday of every month when children's allowances are payable. On these days sub-postmasters concerned usually increase their staff but they can hardly be expected to provide accommodation or staff on a scale to ensure no delay under such peak conditions.

Deputy Moore referred to the need for a new sorting office, and I think he had Ballsbridge in mind. The Department have agreed to lease accommodation for a new sorting office in an office block which a private developer proposes to erect at Ballsbridge, provided the developer obtains detailed planning permission for the scheme. Terms have been agreed with the developer's agent for the leasing of sorting office accommodation which will be on the ground floor of the office block. When outside planning permission was given for the scheme, fairly onerous conditions were imposed which necessitated extensive revision of the building plans. The detailed plans prepared on the new basis have not yet been approved, but the decision is expected shortly.

Deputy Tully asked what further progress is likely to be made in the erection of buildings to be used as post offices and improving the facilities in the various post offices. In my opening speech I mentioned some offices where work was in progress or contracted for. In addition to those, work has just commenced on an improvement scheme at Blackrock post office, County Dublin, and tenders have been invited for the erection of a new post office at Dungarvan. Plans have reached a fairly advanced stage for the erection of new post offices at Donegal, Longford, Listowel, Mullingar and Shannon, and the provision of new post offices at Tipperary and Clonmel are at the initial planning stages. Plans for improvement at Ballyhaunis, Boyle, Castlebar and Kilmallock post offices are also at an advanced stage.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister say if that is the entire programme planned by his Department?

Mr. G. Collins

I would think so.

Mr. Tully

I would have hoped the Minister would give me——

Mr. G. Collins

A more comprehensive one?

Mr. Tully

Yes, say, a five-year plan. Would the Minister consider it?

Mr. G. Collins

I will have the Deputy's request considered. Some Deputies, including Deputy Richard Burke, referred to a recent case in which a summons was issued against the Department for failure to comply with certain provisions of the Office Premises Act. There have been a few recent instances of this kind. The summonses were in respect of such matters as toilets, lighting, heating and accommodation for staff clothing, and in one case failure to provide a handrail on a staircase, although I think that particular summons was withdrawn.

In my opening statement I gave some particulars of the progress made on the provision of new buildings and the extension and improvement of existing buildings and of works in progress and contracted for. Plans for other new buildings and improvements of existing buildings are at various stages. Deputies will realise, of course, that because of the age of some post office buildings and because of expansion of the Department's business, particularly on the telephone side, difficulties are likely to arise from time to time in complying with some of the provisions of the Office Premises Act. However, action is being taken to ensure that all necessary or desirable improvements will be made where practicable as quickly as possible.

Mention was made of the problem of ventilation in the Central Sorting Office here in Dublin. In my reply to last year's Estimate debate, I gave an estimate of the time needed to instal a mechanised ventilation system in the building which, as it turned out, was over-optimistic. Unexpected architectural difficulties arose mainly in connection with fire precautions and the location of the penthouse for the ventilation plans, with the result that changes in lay-out and design had to be made. These held up completion of the drawings. I am afraid it will be necessary to continue to use the office, particularly the main sorting office, while the work is in progress, and this gave rise to considerable difficulty in planning scaffolding lay-out to the best advantage.

This matter has since been the subject of a number of consultations between the Office of Public Works consulting engineer and quantity surveyor and the departmental staff representatives. The Commissioners of Public Works now expect that tenders will be invited early in January. They expect that a contract will be placed about three months later and, on present information, that the work will take from 12 to 18 months to complete.

Deputy McMahon referred to the need for a sorting office in Tallaght. It is intended to provide a sorting office in that area and my Department have been in touch with the local authority on the question of obtaining a suitable site for a sorting office, and the matter will come up for discussion shortly when the Office of Public Works will have a meeting with the Dublin County planning Department regarding the provisions of facilities and sites for a variety of State services in the Tallaght area.

Deputy Coughlan urged that the pay of temporary telephonists should be increased. The pay of temporary telephonists was revised within the last year following agreement at the Departmental Conciliation Council on a claim made on their behalf. Deputy Treacy referred to employment as part-time telephonists of persons already in full-time jobs. The Department's primary concern in recruiting telephonists, whether whole-time or part-time, is to get people who will be suitable for the work and applicants are assessed on that basis. If the Department were to exclude from consideration for part-time telephonist work persons in whole-time employment, it would create very serious problems. The part-time telephonists are employed for only a limited number of hours and, indeed, the pay is not sufficient to attract unemployed persons, who would have to forfeit their unemployment benefit or assistance if they accepted part-time employment. Furthermore, not everybody has the educational or other qualities necessary for efficient telephone operating.

Deputy Tully referred to the question of the amount of overtime paid to delivery postmen at Christmas. During the Christmas pressure period last year tests were carried out on a representative sample of delivery routes which were agreed with the Post Office Workers Union. Analyses of the information obtained during the tests showed that the amounts of overtime being paid were generally reasonable.

Mr. Tully

Is the Minister serious?

Mr. G. Collins

I am.

Mr. Tully

I am afraid the Minister is stretching parliamentary language a little. I would suggest that tests be carried out on a wider basis this year and the Minister will find that that is not correct.

Mr. G. Collins

If the Deputy is serious when he asked if I am serious and honestly believes, as I am sure he does, that the tests we carried out were not sufficiently wide, we will certainly consider carrying out further tests.

Mr. Tully

I have had complaints, not so many as previously, and so has the Minister.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Tully and Deputy Desmond raised the question of the participation of Post Office staff in politics. Claims for revision of the existing regulations governing the participation of certain grades of Post Office staff in politics are at present before the Departmental Conciliation Council and discussion of these claims is continuing. It would be inappropriate for me to comment upon them while they are under discussion at the council.

Mr. Tully

The Minister will remember he said the same thing last year and his predecessor said the same the year before.

Mr. Desmond

We have heard that since 1940.

Mr. Tully

1948, to be exact.

Mr. G. Collins

I can assure the House that whoever may be Minister for Posts and Telegraphs this time next year will not be saying what I am saying. A decision will be made.

Mr. Tully

Could you not make it before the next general election? That might be too quick.

Mr. G. Collins

If we were interested in doing that, we could have done it last week. We may do it next week.

Mr. Tully

You could. It is rather a pity.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputies Richard Burke, Desmond and Tully inquired about a five-day week for postmen. Deputy Cooney also referred to that matter. A five-day week, Monday to Friday with Saturday off, was introduced for delivery postmen in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire in 1970-71. Following a survey of public reaction to the cessation of Saturday deliveries the staff representatives advised last year that cessation of Saturday deliveries was not being sought at other centres and that a staggered five-day week was acceptable. Formal agreement in principle was then reached at the conciliation council that a five-day week would be introduced at individual offices where this did not involve significant extra cost or worsening of service. The possibility of introducing five-day week schemes at these offices is being negotiated office by office at present. So far it has been found possible to introduce a five-day week for about 540 of the 1740 postmen in provincial centres.

Deputy R. Burke inquired about the recruitment of engineers and technicians. Both these grades are recruited through the Civil Service Commission, the technicians as trainees. Taking engineers first, the number of engineers recruited in the last five years was 120. The Department has constant liaison with the placement officers in the universities and by arrangement with these officers senior engineers from the Department visit the universities during the early part of the year. They address the students and issue a general invitation to visit the Department. The Department also operates free scholarship schemes. One scheme provides for special leave with pay to selected staff in certain grades in the Department to attend a course in technical engineering at a university or the College of Technology in Kevin Street. The second scheme provides for the award of scholarships to students who have been successful in the leaving certificate examination and the third is for students who have completed at least two years of a course leading to a professional engineering qualification or a science degree including experimental physics as a subject.

Some 40 engineers resigned in the last five years almost all of whom had very short service. It is common practice for engineers to move from one employment to another in their early years to widen their experience and the number resigning is not regarded as abnormal.

As regards technicians, the main avenue of recruitment is via the technician trainee grade. In the last five years 650 technician trainees were recruited and at present there are some 450 trainees undergoing training, the intake in the current year being 174. These receive an intensive training over a period of about four years, consisting of full-time attendance at special vocational school courses, full-time attendance at training courses provided by the Department and supervised on-the-job training as well.

It is now the practice to divert trainees who do not reach the required technical standard to other work at a lower level in the Department's engineering branch so that use can be made of the knowledge they have acquired.

When Deputy Richard Burke was speaking about the need for achieving greater productivity he stressed the importance of enlisting the support of the staff organisations and asked for information regarding the consultative councils. In my opening statement I said we had been assured by staff organisations of their full co-operation in improving efficiency and that the staff organisations and management have been working together for many years to create a climate of good relations. Following discussions at the Departmental Conciliation Council of ways and means of improving management-staff communications, it was agreed between the departmental and the staff representatives that councils should be established on an experimental basis at a number of the major staff centres throughout the country. Twelve councils are now operating and it has been agreed with the staff to set up four more at other centres. The councils meet generally at monthly intervals and discuss a wide range of topics of local interest. Their operation is to be reviewed shortly by the Department and the staff organisations and the Departmental Conciliation Council and further action will be considered then.

Deputy R. Burke inquired about the use of behavioural sciences in helping to identify and remove causes of staff dissatisfaction or causes of friction between staff and management. I referred in my statement on the Estimate last year to what the Department is doing in this field. In recent years two assignments of industrial psychologists have been made for the purpose of surveying and reporting on staff attitudes and morale, in particular on how the job could be made more satisfying. One such assignment, in the Central Telephone Exchange in Dublin, has been completed and preliminary action has been taken on many of the psychologist's recommendations. The other assignment consists of a similar study among postal sorters in the Central Sorting Office. The work on this study is fairly advanced and the report of the survey team is expected towards the end of this year. It should be at hand very soon after Christmas. When the results of these surveys have been studied and appraised, the question of conducting similar surveys among other groups of staff will be considered.

Apart from this specialised and specific use of the behavioural sciences, there is, of course, considerable emphasis on the psychology of staff-management relations in training courses for managers, supervisors and others.

Deputy R. Burke mentioned that junior staff in the lower grades must from time to time be able to offer ideas for improving the service. A scheme has been in operation in the Department since 1957 for consideration of suggestions made by the staff. A special committee considers these suggestions and makes awards to members of the staff whose suggestions are adopted and also to those whose suggestions, while not warranting adoption, nevertheless, show sufficient thought, care and work to warrant recognition. Since 1st January, 1969, the committee have considered 1,269 suggestions from members of the staff and have made awards in respect of 345 of the suggestions. There is no doubt the staff suggestion scheme has been a success and that it has made a useful contribution to efficiency.

Deputy Burke referred to statements made by the Sub-Postmasters Union about difficulties encountered in dealing with the increasing volume of traffic at manual sub-office exchanges. The policy of the Department is to convert such exchanges to automatic working as quickly as possible. A substantial number of these exchanges has been converted to automatic working but it will take some years before this work is completed. In general, sub-postmasters have been able to deal with the increased volume of traffic. Some sub-postmasters in charge of the larger exchanges have had problems with regard to this matter and the Department have given special assistance to enable them to continue to provide the services. Where any problems may arise in this connection help will be given. The payment made to sub-postmasters for telephone work is related to the volume of traffic they handle; consequently, when the volume of traffic grows the payment is increased. I might mention that there is a claim by the Sub-Postmasters Union for higher pay for telephone work before the sub-postmasters conciliation council. However, I will not comment on this matter at this stage.

Deputy McLaughlin referred to assignment of telephone staff to posts away from their homes. On recruitment, telephonists are normally assigned temporarily to an exchange near their homes but when they are due for assignment to a permanent post it is necessary to transfer them to another exchange. This is in accordance with an arrangement with the staff association concerned which provides that when vacancies arise applicants for transfer are given priority in order of seniority. However, every effort is made to ensure that telephonists are assigned to exchanges near their homes.

Deputy Treacy referred to the timing of postmen's routes. Post testing is a long-established and essential feature of post office working; the only way in which the time required for a given post can be assessed is by having the actual test carried out. It is usual for a postman who considers his post has been overloaded to request the test and I hope Deputy Treacy takes note of this fact.

Deputy Coughlan mentioned deductions from pay in respect of income tax. Income tax liability is assessed by the Revenue Commissioners and deductions from pay are based on that assessment. My Department have no function other than to make the requisite deductions from pay. If a person considers the income tax assessment and consequent deductions are unfair, I am sure the Revenue Commissioners would consider any representations made.

Deputies Donnellan and Treacy referred to the recruitment of subordinate staff. The vast bulk of this staff, such as postmen, telephonists and technicians, are established and are recruited by means of open competitions conducted by the Civil Service Commission. My Department have no say in the selection of candidates. Certain unestablished and part-time grades are recruited either by open competition conducted by my Department or by way of selection from persons nominated by employment exchanges. All applicants are interviewed and their suitability is assessed by my Department before appointment is approved.

Deputy Treacy urged that displacement of staff should be avoided in postal motorisation schemes. In order to avoid displacement of long-serving postmen, motorised services are introduced only when a vacancy occurs. The ideal arrangement would be to introduce the motorised services immediately vacancies occur but often this is impracticable. Although every effort is made to cover posts in the interval on an allowance basis by utilising the services of existing postmen, in some cases it is necessary to recruit men in a temporary capacity. Where this is done the men concerned sign a form to the effect that they recognise that the work is temporary and gives no claim to continued employment. When motorised services are introduced these men must be displaced but in most cases they would have been employed only for a few months. If motorisation is to proceed, and in the interests of reducing the high costs of rural postal delivery it is essential that it should, a limited amount of short-term temporary employment of this kind is inevitable. As I have pointed out, it is very limited and we do all we can to restrict it.

Deputy Burke raised some questions about the types of technical equipment and plant used by the Department. He referred to the old Strowger equipment, an electro-mechanical system being used here, and stated that many of our difficulties were due to the drawbacks of this system. Deputy Burke wondered if my Department were aware of more up-to-date systems and he referred to an electronic system he had read about. When the Deputy saw micro-wave equipment in the Post Office Tower in London he admired the very up-to-date methods beings used by the British Post Office and he was glad to find that in Ireland we also used the micro-wave system. The Deputy wondered if we had been following the lead of the British Post Office because he asked if these systems were provided simply to slot in effectively with the British system. It is easy for the layman who tries to familiarise himself with technical and semi-technical matters to be led astray by certain published articles but the Deputy might give the engineering staff in my Department credit for being aware of significant developments and improvements in techniques.

Mr. R. Burke

I do. It is not simply a matter of being aware of developments.

Mr. G. Collins

Micro-wave systems for the transmission of telephone signals and television programmes have been in use in my Department since the early sixties. They have many advantages and they do not, as Deputy Burke suggested, provide a universal substitute for cables. So far as the old Strowger equipment is concerned, it may surprise the Deputy to know that in the British Post Office whose modern methods he admired so much, about 98 per cent of the telephone equipment is of this kind. In 1957 we started to use a more efficient type of exchange equipment known as Crossbar which had been developed by the Americans and the Swedes. We standardised this equipment for new exchanges in 1962; at present 48 per cent of our exchange lines are of the Crossbar type as compared with 52 per cent of the Strowger type. Eventually we will replace all the Strowger exchanges but this does not mean such equipment is old or inefficient.

Strowger equipment is in use in many countries including the United States. Some time ago when in Washington I was shown a Strowger exchange that had been in service for 40 years and I was told it would give many more years of service before they would consider replacing it. Both Strowger and Crossbar exchanges are electro-mechanical and are in general use throughout the world. Electronic exchanges are still in the development experimental stage and only a tiny proportion of such exchanges, mostly prototypes, are yet in use. We do not propose using telephone exchanges of this kind until they have been proved elsewhere. We have a new telex exchange on order which incorporates electronic features.

Deputy Burke inquired whether there were any further developments with pulse code modulation systems. There are very definite constraints on the application of PCM techniques to existing cables. The type of cable must be suitable. It must not be longer than about 25 miles or shorter than about eight miles and it must have a sufficiency of suitable spare circuits to enable the PCM system to be applied. Apart from the six routes mentioned in the notes for Deputies, there are no other existing routes which meet all these conditions. However, new cable schemes of appropriate length are now being designed so that PCM equipment can be applied to them as and when required in the future. I can assure the Deputy that this system will be used to the maximum extent possible.

Deputy Burke asked about the progress of a group studying latest developments in the field of transmission. I do not know what group he was referring to. I mentioned in my statement that my Department had joined with other European telecommunications administrations in a special study of future prospects in the date transmission field and a report is expected early next year. Apart from that there are numerous international study groups established under the aegis of the International Telecommunications Union or the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations which are considering various aspects on both the technical and operational aspects of telecommunications and through participation in or study of the reports of these study groups my Department keep abreast of developments.

Deputy Burke quoted from an article in the Irish Independent of 21st October, 1972, in which a British businessman commented adversely on the telephone service here. The man concerned was quoted as saying that he was appalled by the long delay in having telephones connected. His firm took over an existing line and applied on 30th August, 1972, for the installation of a switchboard and extra line and four extensions. On 20th September they asked for a further three exchange lines and two extensions, making five exchange lines and six extensions in all. This involved providing a different type of switchboard from that first ordered and all of the first order and portion of the second had been met early in November, that is within aproximately two months. This requirement was in a difficult exchange area where, pending completion of a new exchange at present being installed, provision of telephones has to be restricted. I think the indignant British businessman did not fare too badly at all. He might well have had to wait much longer in most European countries, possibly not excluding Britain.

Deputy Burke referred to the fact that a person dialling 191 to report a fault is answered by a telephonist who has to pass the fault on to the technician in the appropriate automatic exchange and that this can cause misunderstanding and delays. The system of centralised fault-recording used in the Dublin manual exchange is intended basically to enable scarce technical personnel to concentrate on attending to faults. The operators who take the details follow clearly established procedures and there is no delay in having the necessary details passed to the technical staff. Without this system a much greater technical staff would be required. Of course if a person wishes, for some particular reason, to speak to a technical officer the operator will connect him on request. The Deputy suggested having a special telephone number for each exchange to receive fault reports, for example, 373737 for numbers beginning with 37. We are looking for ways of improving the existing procedure and the Deputy's suggestion or some modification of it will certainly be considered.

The same Deputy asked whether the requirement of rental in advance for new telephones acts as a brake on demand. Of course it does and it is meant to. If the requirement were dropped there would be an increase in demand and a waiting list. On the other hand, the requirement is not unreasonable. Applicants are not being asked to pay extra but to lodge in advance the rental for which they are contractually liable. The Deputy mentioned that administrations in other countries are in the position where they can almost say: "Please take a telephone." I am quite satisfied that very few, if any, administrations are in that happy position. Most of the administrations we know of have long waiting lists. For example, there were nearly a half-million on the waiting list in Great Britain at the end of September 1972. At the beginning of 1972 there were over a half-million waiting for service in France, over 600,000 in West Germany, almost 200,000 in Italy and well over 100,000 in Holland. It is certainly not available on request, as Deputy Burke seems to think. They are not being pushed at people.

Deputy Burke referred to the provision of £533,000 under subhead F (3) of the Estimate for satellite and other international telecommunication circuits and asked about liaison with RTE in regard to satellite communications. The provision under subhead F (3) is made up of £330,000 for rentals on existing and additional international circuits and £200,000 for new capital investment in transatlantic satellite and cable facilities. The figure for rental includes rentals on our direct circuits to European centres as well as on leased transatlantic circuits needed to carry the growing telephone and telex traffic between this country and the US and Canada. Telecommunications satellites and cables are used as required to provide relay facilities for broadcasting organisations, including RTE. Those organisations pay for the occasional use in much the same way as the public pay when they make telephone calls.

Deputy Paddy Burke and others referred to vandalism to kiosks. I agree that this is a very serious problem, particularly in urban areas. There has been a substantial increase in the incidence of vandalism in recent years and various measures have been taken to combat it—for example, by replacing glass with large sheets of strong plastic material, by fitting steel plates to which the coin-box can be bolted and by installing continuous fluorescent lighting. A strong type of coin-box is also being experimented with. My Department are fully conscious of the need to follow up all developments which would reduce the level of vandalism and we have been keeping in close touch with other administrations on this matter. Special attention is being given to the maintenance for kiosks to ensure that they are kept in service as far as practicable. A large staff is engaged exclusively on this work in Dublin city, where almost 90 per cent damage by vandalism occurs.

Deputy Desmond was eloquent on the subject of deficiencies in our telephone service. He compared it very unfavourably with the service of other European countries. I have made no claim that the telephone service is perfect and in my opening statement I explained some of the reasons for such deficiencies as exist, but I must confess to some feeling of irritation with this habit—only too common— of denigrating Irish services and praising those of other countries. Deputy Burke candidly referred to the fact that the telephone services in other countries are very far from perfect and indeed in many countries the telephone service is very distinctly inferior to the Irish telephone service. I think it would be very helpful if Deputy Desmond before making charges of this kind would seek a little experience——

Mr. Desmond

I made no charges. The Minister should not use emotive language. I made criticisms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his reply without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

It is a long time since the Deputy made his contribution and I know he was brought in at the last minute to stand in as spokesman for his party but I respectfully suggest that he should have a look at what he said in the Official Report.

Mr. Desmond

I made criticisms.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Desmond suggested that it was small consolation to people waiting for telephones here to be told of waiting lists in other countries. This is a view with which I do not very seriously disagree but, when we come to review the telephone service, we must have regard to facts as we know them to exist in other countries as well as in Ireland. The Deputy referred to a waiting list of 300,000 in Britain as compared with 22,000 here and he implied that, having regard to the comparable population of the two countries, 300,000 was substantially smaller. I would respectfully suggest to the Deputy, even if he has his 300,000 instead of 600,000 today that he sharpens his pencil and have another try at getting his sums sorted out. He might be surprised at the result.

Mr. Desmond

I did not imply any such thing.

Mr. G. Collins

If he has any sort of mathematical brain whatever——

Mr. Desmond

I said I was acutely aware of 300,000 in Britain and, on a comparable basis, it was about the same in Ireland.

Mr. G. Collins

I am suggesting that the Deputy is wrong and I am suggesting, too, in the nicest way what he should do.

Mr. Begley

The Minister might listen to suggestions.

Mr. G. Collins

I have been listening to suggestions since this debate started and, I might add, without interrupting anybody. I was very grateful to Deputy Desmond for the strong support he gave to my declaration in regard to the need for ample capital moneys to expand the telephone service at the desired rate. He was critical of the failure to provide adequate capital in recent years for the telephone service and he suggested that the Minister for Finance was totally unresponsive to my request for additional capital. He clearly had paid little attention to what I said in my opening statement. In that statement I mentioned that in 1971-72 the original allocation of capital for telephone development was increased from £9.4 million to £11.11 million and for 1972-73 an allocation of £13.73 million has been approved. The Deputy will not, I hope, be surprised if he finds me coming back here later in the year with a Supplementary Estimate for still more capital funds. I would be even more impressed by Deputy Desmond's support if, having been for three years, as he told us, principal spokesman for the Labour Party in the affairs of my Department, he had shown some understanding of the capital figures about which he was talking. He said, and I quote:

The answer to the problem is an injection of £10 million, £15 million or £20 million in order to bring back the telephone service to its proper communications role.

Apparently Deputy Desmond regards the difference between £10 million and £20 million as of no consequence.

Mr. Desmond

I said no such thing.

Mr. G. Collins

He appears to be blissfully unaware that the Government decided in 1968 on a development programme, not of £10 million or £20 million but——

Mr. Desmond

The Minister is hard-up now for a crack.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

I have to say it, but the Deputy is at his usual waffling.

Mr. Desmond

I said £10 million to £20 million to do the job the Minister should have done in the past few years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Desmond also talked about what he described as starvation of capital over the last 15 years by successive Fianna Fáil Cabinets. I have remarked already on the looseness with which the Deputy bandies figures of millions of pounds, but he is much more reticent on the subject of finding the money. However, as we have had this charge by the Deputy in respect of the last 15 years, it is no harm to look at what happened in the three years immediately preceding that period of time. In the ordinary course of administration the Department has internal committees for certain purposes. There is, has been for a long time, a telephone development committee dealing with the expansion and development of the telephone service. During the years 1954 to 1957, when the Coalition Government were in office, engines were reversed and, instead of a telephone development committee a special telephone capital restrictions committee was set up to decide how best to carry out the Coalition Government's directives to cut down on expenditure on telephone capital development.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister is hard up. He was only 14 years of age then.

Mr. G. Collins

I am more than 14 now and I can still remember something that happened then. I am very happy to say that no Fianna Fáil Government have ever been driven to these straits. In my opening statement I referred to shortages of capital, but these shortages should be seen in the context of an investment of approximately £96 million in the period from 1957 to 1973 as compared with a total previous investment of £17 million since the telephone service was established. The State has not got a bottomless purse and the capital requirements of the telephone service have to be appraised alongside other capital needs of the economy. I am more than hopeful that the progressive increases in the allocations of capital which my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has been glad to make available for telephone development will continue, and that it will be possible to devote to telephone development all the funds required to enable the service to be rapidly brought to the standard of perfection we would all like to see.

Deputy O'Donnell asked for some information on the transmission of computer data by telephone. Such date may be transmitted by a telephone subscriber to a computer centre, either over exclusive circuits rented from my Department or over the public telephone system. For this purpose data transmission units, known as modems, are supplied and maintained by my Department on a rental basis. If Deputy O'Donnell is interested in having further information in regard to these facilities and charges I shall be more than glad to forward it to him.

Deputy Treacy referred at some length to the interception of telephone calls in certain circumstances. He was correct in thinking this was a matter for the Department of Justice rather than my Department. The position is that telephone communications may be intercepted only in pursuance of warrants issued by the Minister for Justice. I am not in a position to give further information on the matter. Deputy O.J. Flanagan's suggestion of temporary telephone operators being recruited to record calls on certain lines is too ridiculous to merit a reply.

Comment was made on the rapid development of the telex service. There are now about 1,600 subscribers and automatic service is available to 21 of the 108 countries to which we have telex service, but these 21 account for 99 per cent of our international telex traffic. We are anxious to have 100 per cent automatic service, but there are difficulties, the most obvious being absence of automatic service in the distant country. The number of telex circuits to the USA has been increased from the 27, mentioned by the Deputy, to 35. Additional circuits can be provided quickly when required.

Deputy Burke asked when the new exchanges in Galway and Limerick would be in operation. We expect to have these in operation at the end of this year or very early in the new year. He also inquired about the waiting list of applicants for telex service. With the exception of about ten applications, which at the end of November could not be met because of temporary plant shortages, there is no waiting list for telex. A similar position obtained generally at the end of November, 1971.

Deputy McMahon suggested that the emergency services should be in bold print on the green pages. The entries relating to the emergency services have been revised for the 1973 directory and I hope the Deputy will find the new format an improvement.

It was with much interest that I noted that Deputies who spoke on the earlier stages of the debate with regard to the question of the application of the direction issued on 1st October, 1971, under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, were all persons who are, were, or had been actively employed by RTE on its various programmes. I refer in particular to Deputy Thornley, an ex-employee of RTE, to Deputy Desmond who is rarely absent from the current affairs programmes and Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, who, coincidentally, happens to be their exclusive expert when they wish to have a special series of programmes prepared, and who also appears on others.

It is, indeed, interesting that these people—and Deputy Garret FitzGerald whose absence from a current affairs programme on RTE might almost be regarded as a matter for surprise— have taken up the cudgels on behalf of RTE. I do not for one moment suggest that in speaking on this subject they are not entirely disinterested, but a person less objectively minded than myself might fear they were.

The Broadcasting Authority Act was passed in 1960. It contained a provision which enabled the Minister to direct the authority, in writing, to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class. For 11 years that power was not used and, in 12 years, it has been used just once. If this is tyranny, as has been suggested, I look to some other definition. May I recall to the House that this direction was issued with the greatest reluctance. It commanded not merely the general support of all parties in the House, but in the community at large.

Deputy Thornley was kind enough to advise Deputies to listen to BBC programmes for the good of their education. He also told us that he "read the English papers quite a lot, another very educative exercise for Deputies," he said. Deputy Thornley was very worried about the dictatorial power of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and suggested that the Broadcasting Authorities in Britain were not subject to any constraint such as the Oireachtas put in the 1960 Act. This is what Deputy Thornley said. If Deputy Thornley, who is so anxious that Deputies should educate themselves by reading English newspapers, had not been too lazy to take the trouble to look at the BBC Handbook of 1972, he would have realised that his statement in regard to the freedoms of the BBC were totally wrong.

He would have found that the BBC Charter provides for the appointment of the Board of Governors of the BBC by Order-in-Council. Article 5 of the Charter provides for the appointment of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC by Order-in-Council. Article 6 of the Charter provides for the dismissal of the BBC Governors by Order-in-Council. To improve Deputy Thornley's education I shall quote for him from page 166 of the BBC handbook of 1972 which states:

There are other obligations which are laid on the BBC not in the context of the Licence but in the form of "Prescriptions" from the Minister, acting within the powers vested in him by the Charter and by the Licence and Agreement. These prescriptions known as the Prescribing Memoranda serve as a kind of unpublished appendix in the Charter and Licence.

One such memorandum elaborates on clause 13 (4) of the Licence by (i) requiring the BBC to refrain from expressing its own opinion on current affairs or on matters of public policy; (ii) forbidding the transmission of television images on very brief duration which might convey a message to or influence the minds of an audience without their being aware or fully aware of what was being done.

The first of those two requirements underlines one of the major differences between the freedom of the Press and the freedoms of the broadcasting media in Britain; the fact that the newspapers are at liberty to editorialise on any subject they choose whereas the Broadcasting Authorities are specifically prevented from doing so. The second requirement is a safeguard against "subliminal" advertising or indoctrination.

I noted that the ex-Chairman of RTE, in appearances on television in Britain on a recent Sunday, did not question that the statutory position of RTE was more favourable than that of the BBC or ITV, instead of being less favourable as our broadcasting experts in this House thought.

I am little interested in what the BBC or any other British television organisation arranges to do in regard to its broadcasts, but some Deputies and, in particular Deputy Thornley, seemed to be deeply moved by the attitude of the British communication authorities on this subject. They may wish to know that, apart from the restrictions I have quoted, the BBC Chairman in a letter dated 19th June, 1964, accepted the "BBC's duty to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality and to ensure that, so far as possible, programmes should not offend against good taste, or decency, or be likely to encourage crime and disorder, or be offensive to public feeling." These last were regarded as obligations which the BBC imposed on itself, but their formal communication by the BBC's Chairman to the Minister, and the latter's formal acknowledgment of them, invested them with something of the nature of a prescription.

I need hardly point out that these rules governing the BBC and ITV, to which some of the Labour Party Deputies and Fine Gael Party Deputies seem so devoted, are more restrictive than those of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. I fully recognise that the spokesmen of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party imagined that they were echoing views that would be expressed in Britain.

Why the representatives of Opposition parties in particular cannot debate this subject on the basis of conditions in this country, instead of those in Britain, where conditions are so different, I do not know. Regretfully I attribute it to their sense of inferiority. Apparently, for them what happens in Britain should happen here in regard to television and radio, regardless of the different circumstances. When I say "regardless of the different circumstances" I am not talking of some minor matter of detail. What the Fine Gael and Labour spokesmen seem to forget is that we are different countries, and with very different problems and, in particular, that Britain has not at this time to face the problems confronting this country.

As a Minister and as a Member of the Government I cannot sit back and forget that over 600 people have met violent deaths recently and that many others have been sadly maimed because of the circumstances obtaining in this country. I have a personal responsibility to see that, so far as my influence carries, I shall not give the opportunity to people of violence to use RTE as a recruiting platform to increase the death toll.

Mr. Briscoe

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Collins

I am answerable to this House for having issued a direction under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act which was included in that Act for the purpose of dealing with an emergency situation. If any Member of the Opposition suggests that there is not now an emergency situation let him say so but, as long as I am Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I will do my duty to the best of my ability, and that includes the exclusion from RTE of the propagation of views aimed at stirring up further killings and sectarian hatred within this country. Let no one be in doubt that when I talk of this country I mean the 32 Countries of Ireland.

When I was preparing the first, stages of my reply to the debate in this House, as it went along, I was not prepared for the tragic events which have since occurred in Dublin. I have been listening to the logic chopping of certain Deputies in the House and, as a reasonably experienced politician, ordinarily I would not mind in matters of lesser importance a certain amount of logic chopping and point scoring, but we have passed far beyond such things.

I listened to Deputy Thornley hold forth because, at one stage, he was in a position to conduct interviews on television. Deputy Thornley set himself up as an expert on the basis of his minor, if profitable, employment in RTE. He expressly objected to the following four provisions in regard to broadcasting in Ireland as imposing more direct ministerial control than the BBC has to endure. First, he objected to the appointment of the chairman by the Government. Secondly, he objected to the power of the Government to remove a member of the authority from office and thirdly, the obligation of the authority "to secure that when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the authority's own views." Fourthly, he objected to the power given to the Minister under section 31 to direct the authority to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class.

In none of these matters is RTE in a weaker position than the BBC. Deputy Thornley claims with pride that what he describes as the principal architect of a certain programme on the BBC had made the point that, very often they were able to broadcast that programme, only by concealing from the senior staff what they were doing until the last moment, by which time nobody could intervene. This is Deputy Thornley's standard. I leave it to this House and to the people to decide whether this is the way the staff of RTE behave. I am confident that the staff of RTE would be the first to reject Deputy Thornley's ideal. The Deputy suggested that the television journalist is alcoholic and excessively left-wing. These are Deputy Thornley's words but I am confident that he is wrong. He expressed the view also that it would be impossible for any assembly, however wise, to find language which would define impartiality in a manner that would be satisfactory. Deputy Thornley went on to quote Deputy Richard Burke—no doubt to the great embarrassment of Deputy Burke—who, in his opening speech had asked if the Minister would not agree, now that RTE had received the opinion of the Oireachtas, that they could be expected to fulfil their role of trust in relation to the institutions of the State. Seldom can a Deputy have been answered so quickly and directly by the body concerned when, within a week of the question, they showed clearly that it was not possible to rely on them to fulfil that role.

Might I digress at this stage to express some wonder that despite the events that Deputy Thornley foresaw occurring, he apparently failed to live up to his firm promise to catch the next plane for Uruguay? I am sure that some of his own colleagues are more disappointed at this than I.

Deputy FitzGerald in his usual two-faced way announced that he agreed heartily with every word Deputy Thornley had said. He went on to say that the problem we faced here is the basic conflict that exists between the political authorities in any country and those concerned with communications. The Deputy added that it is a conflict which has not very much to do with parties. He developed the idea of how, if he were Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, he would have no trouble in finding a dishonest and devious way of dealing with RTE. Happily, I take a different view. I prefer the honest and straightforward attitude.

Deputy FitzGerald went on to say that frequently he had listened to television programmes and detected what he thought was a biased viewpoint For example, he mentioned that during the EEC campaign he thought the predominant views that emerged was one of scepticism about the EEC. He added that to him it was not surprising that a particular group of people in RTE have shared assumptions and ideas which to him, and I gather he meant also the majority of people in the country, might be alien. He added also that this was true of other matters. Deputy FitzGerald went further and referring back to January, 1969, when Deputy Thornley was not a Member of this House but was employed by RTE, he reminded us that he had said that every one of the programmes on politics that he had watched had involved comment, that every time he had listened to Mr. Thornley putting over a programme on the Oireachtas he was commenting on some point, that Mr. Thornley could not refer to the issue without comment, that he was giving an informed view on the subject and that whatever the Act may say or whatever the Minister may think, inevitably the officer of RTE will comment on public affairs as he goes along.

I come now to what was, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary statements I ever heard in this House, even from Deputy FitzGerald. Deputy FitzGerald said there is something inherently unbalanced about the idea of a Government deciding what is in the national interests. Go bhfóire Dia orm. I can hardly believe that any Deputy with any pretentions to a sense of responsibility could give expression to this idea. I will let it go at that. I am hopeful that the Deputy who is regarded by some as not being devoid of intelligence will realise how unwise was his expression.

Deputy O'Donovan during the course of the debate on the Estimate pointed in an interesting fashion to the extent of Deputy FitzGerald's engagement in a professional and, I am sure, remunerative capacity by RTE. On this subject Deputy FitzGerald, while not denying the frequency of his paid appearances on RTE, referred to a problem some years ago which prevented his being employed, as he claimed, to speak on "Thomas Davis Lectures". Wisely or otherwise, the view of the recently departed authority on this sort of thing changed radically.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien who spoke later in an eloquent and moving manner on behalf of RTE was placed in a more favourable position than apparently was Deputy FitzGerald because the authority found no difficulty in engaging Deputy Cruise-O'Brien at what I hope was a handsome fee to appear actively on a programme called "We, The Irish". Before I dismiss Deputy FitzGerald's remarks regarding the Government, I consider myself bound to say that of all the persons in this House to speak of "slight vanity that could easily blossom into arrogance", to quote the Deputy, he should be the last to give expression to the thought because few more arrogant men have ever sat on any bench on any side of this House.

Mr. Briscoe

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy FitzGerald complained that the directive under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, was so imprecise as not to be effective. He said that it did not specify who were the people to be kept off RTE or what were the statements that were not to be made. He said that the matter was left so vague that if he were the authority he would not know how to proceed at that point. The Deputy has been severe in his censure in various respects and I find it difficult to imagine the degree of indignation that he would have expressed if I, as Minister, had named specific people to be kept off RTE. I fear the Deputy might have exploded. I made no attempt to name those people. The RTE Authority were composed of people who were assumed to be responsible citizens who could be expected to act according to their judgment. I have not the slightest doubt that if I had decided to name people Deputy FitzGerald would have been one of the first to cry out his indignation at this arrogant expression of Government opinion. The Deputy has used the occasion of the debate on the Estimate for my Department to make the most extravagant charges against the Government. He has talked in terms of the Government not liking the truth to be told on RTE programmes. Section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, which was passed by the elected representatives of this country provides that:

It shall be the duty of the authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the authority's own views.

Both Deputies FitzGerald and Thornley regard the preservation of impartiality as a tiresome restriction to be evaded when possible. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien tells us that he read a very lucid and informative statement made by Deputy Burke during the debate and that he had heard the statement made by the Labour spokesman on Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Thornley, and also that made by Deputy FitzGerald. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien expressed pleasure at the harmony of thought that prevailed in all those statements and he was pleased to think that he would be able to set his own remarks into the same framework.

Perhaps the Deputy would have been able to fit his remarks more easily into the same framework if it had not been that Deputy Desmond had announced profoundly earlier in the debate that he was, to quote himself, "the principal Labour Party spokesman appointed to speak on this Estimate". Clearly Deputy Cruise-O'Brien does not know who is the spokesman for his party on this Estimate but I am confident that the two, or should I say the three Deputies, will be able to straighten this out between themselves and let us know at a later date what is the outcome. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien read a Labour Party declaration on this issue of the situation in regard to the Government and RTE. He insisted that the statement was a unanimous one and that the Labour Party were entirely united on it. This must have given great pleasure to the Labour Party, it being the first matter on which for many years they have been united.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien referred, in the course of the debate, with a nakedness which could almost be deemed indecent, to differences within the Labour Party. He referred to the fact that Deputy Thornley whom he described as their spokesman on Posts and Telegraphs, and himself had taken different positions on various issues. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien talked of not having changed his mind and thinking that Deputy Thornley had not changed his mind; he did not mention what Deputy Desmond had done with his mind. I suppose he did not read the Cork Examiner yesterday. In view of present circumstances I have no intention of dealing with anything in relation to Mr. Mac Stiofáin personally because I think this House will recognise it is not my function to do so.

The matter has been raised that the authority asked the Minister for clarification of his direction and that he refused to give any clarification. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien suggested that the intention was: "It was up to them to construe it and if they construed it wrongly, that is to say differently from the Minister's own interpretation, his own construction of his own words, they would get it in the neck." In fact, according to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, the object of the direction was to set up a situation in which they could get it in the neck. He said: "Give them a directive that was so vague that almost anything they did was bound to violate it according to the Minister's interpretation which he held in reserve and then catch them when their pants were down on some suitable issue."

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and other Deputies who later spoke referred to the brutal, impetuous or heavy-handed way in which the former RTE Authority were dismissed. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, making his typical each way bet added: "We are not saying that the State should have no concern about what is being broadcast in the public service broadcasting system. We are not saying that the Minister should not have the right to talk to the authority and that he should not say: `Listen, my friends' we are worried about the handling of things in RTE. We fear it may be promoting certain activities and certain kinds of sedition in this country"'.

A number of other Deputies subsequently echoed the same view that I, as a Minister, should have sat down with the authority and discussed with them their problems in regard to the implementation of the direction issued under section 31. This was suggested. Other Deputies were more than ready to suggest that if I opened my mouth to the authority I would be guilty of improper interference with them in the performance of their duty. It is quite clear that so far as the Opposition Deputies are concerned there is nothing the Minister can do in relation to the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority which is right. However, I share the view expressed by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and others that it was right that I should talk candidly to the authority about the situation that existed and the uneasiness which I and my colleagues in the Government felt about how the affairs of the authority were being conducted in relation to current affairs programmes.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien expressed it well when he said he would find it hard to believe that the authority would have been altogether heedless of the Minister's view "gently expressed". I have great sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and echoed by later Opposition speakers. Indeed, I have more than sympathy for them. In fact, before he expressed his views, I had done exactly what he in this debate said he would like to see done.

On the 23rd June last I asked the full authority to meet me and I explained to them my sense of uneasiness about the trend of events in RTE just as Deputy Cruise-O'Brien apparently would have wished. I indicated my views very, very clearly to the authority on that occasion. In view of the fact that, in opening the meeting of the 23rd June, 1972, with the authority I indicated I wished the proceedings of the meeting to be treated as confidential I am reluctant to disclose the full statement I made on that occasion. If the House wishes me to do so, it will give me great pleasure to say fully what I said on that occasion in view of the suggestion that the authority were under some misapprehension about the interpretation of the direction under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. If there is anybody who wants to hear what I said, I will let him know what I said. If I have any takers, I will be only more than glad to oblige.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister should let them know what he said since most of them are not here to take up his challenge.

Mr. Kavanagh

Surely if the Minister said the meeting was confidential, he should keep it confidential.

Mr. G. Collins

If the Deputy had been sitting here for the last 34 or 35 hours as I have been sitting listening to what was being said by members of his party he would feel as I feel. I said:

I am glad to have the opportunity of greeting the authority in the General Post Office this morning.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister is going to say it anyway.

Mr. G. Collins

I am, of course. Was I not asked for it? I notice it was not by any of the kind-hearted gentlemen in the Deputy's party. I continued:

Let me preface my remarks by saying that the proceedings here today are confidential although, of course, the fact that a meeting is taking place is well known. I had decided some time ago that I would like to meet the authority for the purpose of conveying to them my views of certain aspects of radio and television programmes. It is, perhaps, a little unfortunate that before this meeting could be arranged developments in the Dáil arising out of a Parliamentary question and an Adjournment debate made it necessary for me to say publicly, in advance of this meeting, some of the things which it had been my intention to say here. However, the discussions in the Dáil and other public comments have clearly shown that my uneasiness about certain matters is widely shared in the community. The comments which I wish to make relate to one area of the authority's responsibilities, namely, current affairs programmes. I fully recognise that these programmes present serious problems for RTE but I feel it necessary to stress the influence which some of these programmes may have on matters affecting the welfare and, indeed, the safety of the State.

I am sure that the circumstances surrounding the radio programme of This Week broadcast in June 1971, containing an interview with two Belfast members of the Provisionals will have remained fresh in the minds of members of the authority. They will recall that this programme was put on by RTE in face of the stated opinion of the Taoiseach that he was very concerned about the proposed broadcast because it would be likely to encourage recruitment for the Provisionals and that he wished to have this part of the programme dropped. I may remark in passing that it is sufficient evidence of my reluctance to intervene in programme matters that no direction was given that the programme be modified or withdrawn.

Subsequently the Taoiseach made the Government's view clear in the Dáil that members of an illegal organisation should not be permitted to use such RTE broadcasts to publicise their aims and activities. Despite all this, RTE arranged for a further programme on the 28th September containing interviews with two IRA members. Before that programme was broadcast, I discussed fully and at considerable length with the chairman the undesirability of going ahead with it and so giving these IRA men a platform for their propaganda. I urged most strongly that it should not be broadcast but the authority decided to set their own judgment of the public interest above that of the Government although important considerations of national security were clearly involved. As a result, it was necessary for me, with the approval of the Government, to give a direction under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, the first ever given.

I have already indicated in the Dáil, and I repeat now, that while I do not say there has been any breach of the section 31 direction——

this was last June—

—many programmes have given rise to grave unease on the part of the Government and myself because of their likely harmful effect on the national interest. It would clearly be impossible to go into detail about all of these programmes since they are not specially watched and criticisms are not noted down except where something particularly objectionable comes under notice.

But the conclusion is inescapable. The programmes have frequently been seriously unbalanced and RTE have been giving far too much publicity to various groups and individuals who persist in various ways in defending the use of violence and those who practise it. At times these people have been enabled to try to upset the efforts of others who are trying hard to have violence ended. For instance, on RTE the limited publicity given to the efforts of the Derry women and of Fr. O'Neill to bring about an end to IRA hostilities in Derry was discounted by counter-publicity which suggested that the peacemakers were not representative.

In a recent Dáil debate on the Adjournment of the House Deputy L'Estrange, speaking for the Fine Gael Party, gave many examples of items which made him feel that programmes tended at times to be biassed and unbalanced. A recent example of the sort of programming which assists the subversive elements was the arranging that the Taoiseach's statement on the 22nd of May that stronger measures were contemplated against the IRA should be followed by a counter-statement by Mr. Ruarí Ó Bradhaigh to the effect that such measures would not be passively accepted by "republicans". The views of other political parties were not given and I assume that they were not approached for their views. Mr. Ó Braidagh is not, of course, an elected public representative.

Mr. O'Malley, the Minister for Justice, was reported incorrectly as describing the prisoners responsible for the riots at Mountjoy Jail as "political prisoners" although the Minister went to pains to point out that all the people concerned had been charged with ordinary criminal offences. Such prisoners were also referred to as "republicans", again giving these advocates of force and violence an aura and a status to which they were not entitled.

I do not know whether any instructions exist in RTE in regard to the careful use of words and expressions which tend to confer unwarranted status on illegal and subversive groups such as giving high-sounding military titles to IRA men.

The amount of broadcasting time given in recent months to Ruairí Ó Bradaigh and Tomás Mac Giolla to explain and defend the views and arguments of the Provisional and Official IRA has hardly been in accord with the spirit of the direction under section 31 given to RTE. On the day following my statement in the Dáil that I was unhappy with the amount of publicity given to certain groups RTE put on an interview with Mr. Seán Ó Bradaigh on how he felt about hunger strikes.

Many people consider that the Féach programme series has over a long period been unbalanced. I would suggest that members of the authority should judge for themselves by viewing a representative selection of Féach programmes broadcast over a period.

I have stated in the Dáil and elsewhere that the country is entitled to expect the utmost care and restraint from RTE in their treatment of violence and of people who support its continuation. I am sorry to say that I do not consider that sufficient care and restraint have been exercised.

The incidents to which I referred were representative of many which in sum suggest to me that there may not be sufficient control within the RTE organisation of programmes dealing with news and current affairs. I am not concerned with the details of arrangements for securing that extreme elements in the community are not given excessive publicity but I must concern myself with the end product. The authority has a statutory responsibility to ensure objective and impartial presentation of news and current affairs programmes and it has a general responsibility to the community not to help those who try to foster unrest and violence by giving them a platform for their views or by giving encouragement in other ways.

It is with regret that I find it necessary to speak in these terms to the authority and I would not do so if I did not feel that it was an inescapable duty on my part. But, I have an ultimate responsibility to the Oireachtas which I shall not shirk.

That is what I said to these people in June, 1972. If anybody feels that that was not spelling it out——

Mr. Desmond

Will the Minister put on record the comprehensive memorandum which he received in reply from RTE and which he has available to him?

Mr. G. Collins

If the Deputy is as genuinely interested as he would like people to think he is about this matter, he would have stayed and listened to what I have had to say.

Mr. Desmond

I have been here all morning.

Mr. G. Collins

You have not, but you can read it.

Mr. Desmond

Will the Minister not put on record the comprehensive memorandum of reply which he received from RTE?

Acting Chairman (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan)): The Minister has listened to a long debate and he should be allowed to conclude without interruption.

Mr. G. Collins

It would be wrong of me to suggest that the members of the authority did not feel that they had an answer to some of these criticisms and that they felt they had been endeavouring to do their duty to the best of their ability. I did not find the answers given to be convincing but, having made my position clear and having made the position of the Government clear in regard to the direction issued under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, as it had been made clear on a number of previous occasions to the chairman, I felt it was completely unnecessary to elaborate further.

A prolonged discussion extending over three hours took place between myself and the authority, at the end of which the authority could not have been left in any doubt—and they were not in any doubt whatever—about where their duty lay in regard to the observance of the direction issued under section 31 of the Act as approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In the course of this prolonged debate reference has been made to the dismissal of the RTE Authority at such short notice. I am at a loss to understand how long notice the Deputies felt the authority should have been given, when, after the previous reminders, they had failed again in their duty to carry out their statutory obligations. There has been a great deal of talk in this debate about the vagueness of the direction given to the RTE Authority under section 31 and their attempts to clarify what the direction meant and my reluctance to spell it out for them and to clarify it still further for them in words of one syllable.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and others made the charge that the direction issued was phrased in vague language and that this was done deliberately to set a trap for the authority. I feel sure that the Deputies, including the present Acting Chairman, who made the suggestions realise, as I do, that the charges they made are entirely without substance. If there is any Deputy in this House who, setting aside nonsense and posturing, is in any genuine doubt of mind about it I must ask him is he convinced that this direction was contravened.

Reference has been made by several Deputies to a letter sent to me by the authority shortly after they received the direction on the 1st of October, 1971, seeking clarification of the direction. I regarded the authority's letter in relation to what was a perfectly clear directive as somewhat less than candid. Neither the authority nor any other responsible body of intelligent people would have been in any doubt whatever about the meaning of the direction. I am fully satisfied that the RTE Authority were under no misapprehension whatever, despite the pretence of their letter. Nevertheless, in the course of my long discussion with the authority I underlined for them various ways in which I considered the authority, without actually contravening the direction, were sailing close to the wind.

Deputy E. Collins of Waterford has mentioned a statement by Professor Moody saying—and I quote—"If the measure of freedom that RTE has had is now to be drastically restricted one of the first casualties will be truth." The answer to this is simple. It is that the measure of freedom that RTE has had is not going to be drastically restricted or restricted at all but RTE will be expected, as the former authority were expected—unfortunately, with excessive reliance on their recognition of the responsibility reposing on them —to carry out their duty in seeing to the implementation of the law as laid down by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy E. Collins referred to a statement made by the former chairman of RTE about letters exchanged between him and me in an attempt to clarify the situation and to get guidance. Deputy Collins is a very innocent man if he accepts these statements as presented. May I bring the Deputy's mind back to the fact that long before the direction was issued, programmes had been put on by the authority which were calculated to encourage and support violent subversive elements in the community?

For a very long time I held back from issuing any direction because of my reluctance to intervene in the affairs of the authority in regard to their programmes. As I have mentioned, there was the occasion on which, despite appeals to the authority from the Taoiseach, with all the special information at his disposal, to refrain from publishing a certain part of a programme publicising Provisional leaders, the authority decided completely to ignore and disregard the Taoiseach's advice. On that occasion we did not do anything to prevent the programme from going out and no direction was issued. But the Taoiseach, as I mentioned earlier, subsequently spoke freely and openly in this House about the dangers of the course the authority were following.

Despite the statement by the Taoiseach, despite the views I had communicated to the chairman, the RTE Authority decided that their judgment on the safety of the country was better informed than that of the Taoiseach and the Government, and they put out the boadcast which led to the issue of the direction.

Some months after the issue of that direction, I brought to the notice of the authority many instances in which they had been sailing close to the wind and where it was felt they were risking national safety. I appealed to the members of the authority to give their personal attention to current affairs programmes on delicate national issues with a view to ensuring that matters dangerous to the welfare of the State would not be broadcast. Nevertheless, as the culminating item we had this broadcast on 19th November, 1972, giving the substance of an interview with Mr. Mac Stiofáin. While the authority are at all times formally responsible for the programmes broadcast, they had a special direct personal responsibility in relation to this broadcast in view not only of what had happened previously but also because of my request to them to take special care in regard to broadcasts on sensitive issues.

I do not propose to give further publicity to what Mr. Mac Stiofáin said in that programme, but those Deputies who heard it know what was reported as having been said by him. I should like to assure the House that this is not a time for playing with words. I am not interested in Opposition devices, speaking artificially about the vagueness of a direction. The former authority themselves recognised and admitted that an error had been made which they delicately referred to as an editorial error. They did not have the courage or the sense of responsibility to acknowledge that they and not subordinates carried the responsibility for it.

It has been suggested in the course of this debate that having admitted an editorial error had been made, the authority should have been excused from all responsibility. The authority had been given an express direction, the only direction issued under section 31 of the 1960 Act, a fact which indicated the seriousness with which the whole matter was regarded. Furthermore, in the course of a long discussion which I had with the authority, I reminded them of their personal and direct responsibility to see that the national interest was protected by carrying out the terms of the direction.

It has been suggested in the course of the debate that the authority, having admitted an editorial error of judgment, promised to take adequate steps to prevent a recurrence. This is incorrect, and even if they had made such a promise I would not have been able to accept it. The authority had displayed a continued failure to interest themselves personally, as was their duty, in seeing that the law was carried out, and it was too late in the day to accept new offers that in future the direction would be carried out.

Having regard to all the facts leading up to the reluctant issuing of the direction, to the subsequent appeals to the authority to observe the direction, to the final blatant breach of the direction without a word or expression of regret by the authority for their total failure of duty, I make no apology whatsoever for having removed them from office. They had proved themselves clearly to be unfit to hold office. I am sorry to have to speak in such strong terms about a group of people who had done much good work in the conduct of the affairs of RTE, but what was and what is at stake here was a matter of vital national interest affecting the lives and deaths of citizens of Ireland.

Several Deputies suggested that the re-appointment of the members of the authority last May indicated that I was entirely satisfied with the performance of their functions in the preceding period. I fail to see how those Deputies arrived at that conclusion. Quite clearly with the Broadcasting Review Committee sitting and expected to report in a reasonably brief period, the balance of advantage seemed to be in re-appointing the existing authority, whether or not I had doubts about some or all of the authority members. I do not suggest I had such doubts but I was quite satisfied to re-appoint the members for a period of one year more.

It has been suggested by several Deputies that in connection with the dismissal of the authority I must have concluded that the members were either supporting subversion of the organs of State or that they were sympathetic to that point of view. Those suggestions emanated from the Deputies and not from me. I had every confidence that the great majority of the authority members were people with a high sense of responsibility and that they were very far from wishing to support elements in the community whose object is subversion by violence.

I had to concern myself with how they carried out their duties, and however reluctant many of them would have been to lend support to the forces of violence in the country, the fact is that they failed in their duty to make such arrangements as would have ensured that RTE would not be used as a platform for these forces of violence. Without reflecting at all on the authority in general as a body of responsible people, I am bound to draw attention to the fact that one former member of the authority within two days of his dismissal from that body appeared on a public platform of what is termed the Provisionals. I am sure his new sympathies were not gained overnight.

If time permitted, but it does not, it would give me great pleasure to analyse the various statements by members of the Opposition in regard to this whole matter. They are so confused as to be totally baffling. One would imagine on reading the contributions made by various Deputies, in particular by members of the Labour Party as well as some members of the Fine Gael Party, that the dismissed authority had not been appointed by the Government but were a group of people appointed by some different body and that the Government had stepped in to remove them and replace them by the Government's own nominees. To such fatuities the Opposition Deputies have descended. They have been so carried away that they forget that the outgoing authority were appointed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the Houses of the Oireachtas in the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, that the authority were removed from office in accordance with the powers conferred and that the new authority likewise have been appointed by the Government in pursuance of these powers.

I could go on at length to discuss the criticisms made by various Deputies of the action I have taken in this matter. If time permitted, I should love to have the opportunity to deal with each Deputy in succession and the two-faced attitudes adopted and the internal contradictions in the statements made by different Deputies. For instance, I could refer to Deputy Michael O'Leary's enthusiasm for the views expressed by Captain Brooke who appears to have endeared himself to that Deputy. Deputy O'Leary apparently was very impressed by editorials in the British press expressing criticism of the Government's action. It is too much to expect that Deputy O'Leary and other Deputies like him, particularly those in the Labour Party, would come around to thinking of Irish affairs in the context of Ireland without constantly looking over their shoulders at the British press and what the British press may think or pretend to think.

Mr. Desmond

Santa Claus is using a sledgehammer this Christmas.

Mr. G. Collins

We had Deputy Fitzpatrick worrying about the problems that the direction presented to the authority—how were they to interpret it? He went on:

It could be said I suppose that to broadcast anything suggesting that a person holds very strongly that violent means are the only methods of solving the problems in Northern Ireland would violate the direction. I suppose that in a speech by a leading member of an illegal organisation to the effect that he believes the right way to unite the country was by physical force and the only way to get the British out of Northern Ireland was to bomb them out, the reporting of such a speech would be and could be regarded as violating the directive.

Yet the same Deputy goes on to say that the authority got no proper direction from the Minister and that he was confirmed in his opinion that the Mac Stiofáin interview broadcast had nothing to do with the sacking of the authority. This was Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, front bencher of Fine Gael from Cavan. I do not know whether it is possible for a Deputy to become more two-faced and more hypocritical than Deputy Fitzpatrick showed himself in these statements.

But almost all the Opposition, who criticised the action taken to implement the direction issued by statutory authority, agreed, as, indeed, they had to agree, that the RTE Authority themselves realised that the direction had been contravened. Nevertheless, I confess to a feeling of disappointment that Deputy Tom O'Higgins should have largely re-echoed the speech of Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick. Deputy O'Higgins suggested that the decision to dismiss the former RTE Authority had been taken immediately after the critical broadcast and before the authority were asked for their views.

I do not believe for one moment that Deputy O'Higgins believes this to be true, and I know that it is absolutely false. The RTE Authority were given an opportunity, a full opportunity of stating what action they intended to take in relation to the broadcast which had been so wrongly put out, not as a first failure on their part but as the last of many failures, as I have already indicated. Deputy O'Higgins's suggestion is unworthy of him and I find it disappointing coming from a man of his stature and reputation. Indeed, I would have expected that Deputy O'Higgins would have realised that the present is not a time for playing politics in the matter of the security of this country and the maintenance of order. Maybe he had not heard Deputy Cosgrave's speech at that stage. Nevertheless, Deputy O'Higgins went on to say:

If you intend to get a new authority you must, first of all, have them ready and handpicked. Some of the new authority that has been appointed say that greatness suddenly descended on them without any expectation, to their amazement, but whether it descended without any prior knowledge, the fact is that there is now a handpicked bunch to run Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann.

How the Deputy would have described every previous authority appointed in exactly the same way as this authority was appointed I leave it to the imagination of Deputies, and I am sure their imagination will not be over-strained. Quite obviously, if an authority are appointed by the Government they must be selected by the Government, and this crude reference to a handpicked bunch is certainly unworthy of Deputy O'Higgins.

The members of the new authority have taken office in a situation of very great difficulty and at a time of great national trial and in order to do a duty to the nation. I am very grateful to them for having accepted office which is extremely onerous and which I know has been accepted by them only out of a sense of national duty. One does not mind the minor minions of the Fine Gael Party trying to score small political points but one is entitled to expect from Deputy O'Higgins some responsible attitude. I am afraid he has betrayed himself. His colleague Deputy Clinton said:

I, like many others, from time to time got the impression that there were certain people employed in RTE who felt that they and only they knew what public opinion was and what the right view was, and there is no doubt that they set out to mould and lead public opinion rather than report.

He went on:

I think that is a wrong function and I think those employees of RTE should be told that by somebody in a position to tell them. I do not think it is the job of the Government. If they appoint an authority, the authority should deal with it.

I think it is reasonable to ask Deputy O'Higgins what he thinks the Government should do in such circumstances. Unfortunately, the rules of debate on my Estimate do not give Deputy O'Higgins the opportunity which I am sure he would very much wish to have to reply to my question, but I am confident that a man of his integrity will find another opportunity of doing so before long.

At the risk of appearing repetitive, let me sum up the position in regard to this debate as I see it. Members of the Opposition parties have accused the Government and myself of having acted tyrannically and in a spirit of panic in removing the authority for having failed to carry out the terms of the direction which was too vague originally and which I refused to clarify. To me this seems to be the charge. I want to rebut it totally and completely. The facts are that before ever a direction was given to the authority and given most reluctantly, I had indicated to the chairman—and the Taoiseach had intervened to have indicated to the chairman—that a programme proposed to be put out in June, 1971, featuring prominent members of the IRA was contrary to the national interest.

Despite all advice the authority proceeded, as they were entitled in law to do, however unwisely, to put out this programme. Subsequently, there was a debate in this House on the whole subject in the course of which the Taoiseach indicated clearly his view as to where the authority's national duty lay in regard to violent and subversive elements in the community and their use of RTE as a platform for recruitment. Again, after having sailed very close to the wind on a number of occasions and having been so informed by me in the course of a lengthy discussion in June of 1972, the authority thought fit to allow a situation to develop in which a broadcast was made on November 19th last which they themselves agreed should not have been broadcast. Looking to the background it was their job and their job personally to see that this did not happen. When questioned as to what action they proposed to take in regard to that broadcast, they returned a longwinded and waffling reply which admitted that the programme should not have been broadcast in the form in which it was broadcast but offered no apology, no expression of regret, no indication that the authority as such accepted responsibility and no adequate assurance that this sort of thing would not be allowed to happen again.

This was the authority's attitude and so far as I was concerned and so far as the Government were concerned, this was not good enough. The authority had shown themselves in this respect quite irresponsible despite the many virtues they may have in other directions, and the Government, looking to the conditions in the country at the present time, had no alternative but to dismiss the authority and to appoint a new authority which it was hoped and is hoped confidently will carry out the statutory duties imposed on them by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Desmond

What will you do if they do not? Shoot them?

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy ought to be ashamed of himself. He is the biggest hypocrite in this House and I hope the people in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will cop him on one of those days when we have an election. He is not worthy to be sitting on the front bench of the Labour Party.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister will get a nut cracker as a present for Christmas.

Mr. G. Collins

The people will not be long sorting the Deputy out. It might not be too long after Christmas either. I take this opportunity of offering my thanks to one member of the Opposition and only one, Deputy Peter Barry, who had the graciousness to wish the incoming authority well.

I have heard with regret, not to say disgust, of the deplorable attitude adopted by the Labour Party administrative council towards a member of that party who as a matter of national duty accepted office as a member of the RTE Authority. We are accustomed to hearing the cries of horror from the Labour Party regarding suggested victimisation in various forms whether in relation to labour disputes or in the broader political field, but here in relation to this man who has shown a true spirit of patriotism in a time of national need, the Labour Party has nakedly shown its vicious vindictiveness. The Labour Party administrative council have endeavoured to impose sanctions on a member of the party who has taken on a task of national importance. This is really the jackboot attitude and I can only hope that the administrative council is not representative of the Labour Party. I do hope and believe that this gentleman will realise how little value should be attached to the Labour Party's vindictive attitude.

It will be necessary for me within the next few months, sometime after Christmas, to bring before the House a Bill in relation to the finances of Radio Telefís Éireann. I sincerely hope that those Deputies who were carried away during this long debate and who expressed themselves unwisely and ungraciously in regard to the new authority will take advantage, as they should, of the opportunity to make proper amends to a patriotic group of men who, as I have indicated, have accepted office at an exceedingly difficult time and certainly under very difficult conditions.

With that, on this particular subject I should like to conclude my remarks. I hope and trust it will never again be necessary for me or, indeed, for any Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to reply to a debate of the sort we have heard here over the past few weeks, to which I do not propose to attach any descriptive label. Those members who have read the debate and those members of the public who may do so, may attach their own label.

Moving on to general matters concerning RTE, several Deputies have commented on individual RTE programmes or series of programmes and matters of day to day administration which come within the bailiwick of the RTE Authority. I have no doubt that all the suggestions made by Deputies will be more than carefully considered by Radio Telefís Éireann. The question of unsatisfactory reception of Radio Éireann television in many parts of the country has been raised by many Deputies. The solution of this problem is primarily a matter for the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. I have, however, a very great deal of sympathy with viewers in these areas and I have made it clear to the authority that I consider it important that this problem should be solved as quickly as possible.

Some Deputies favoured the establishment of a second television channel or multi-channel viewing in those parts of the country where reception of BBC and ITV is not possible at present. Deputy Richard Burke referring to the present situation claimed rather touchingly that we were failing to observe the injunction that all the children of the nation should be cherished equally. In advocating at very great length the provision of a second RTE television channel Deputy Burke failed to make it clear how this action would result in all the children of the nation being cherished equally. Even if a second or, indeed, a third RTE programme were to be provided, the situation would remain that people living in the area of reception of BBC and ITV programmes would still have access to programmes not available to other children of the nation.

Deputy Desmond mentioned the possibility of setting up local radio stations. He was also very worried, as I think was Deputy Burke, about what they regarded as the precarious state of Radio Telefís Éireann's finances. Deputy Desmond was also disturbed about the growing dependence of Radio Telefís Éireann on advertising revenue. He was, however, as usual, extremely coy about where all the money was to come from to relieve the financial straits which he described and to expand the television service. He helpfully said:

I believe the future financial needs of the authority will have to be effectively met by the Government.

Rather unhelpfully, he did not mention where he expects the Government to find the money and, in particular, whether he favours a substantial increase in the licence fee to relieve RTE's dependence on advertising revenue and to improve its financial condition. Deputy Burke likewise disclaimed any suggestion that he was advocating an increase in the licence fee.

As regards the various suggestions made for radical changes in the control or operation of RTE, I have no doubt that the Broadcasting Review Committee will make a comprehensive review of the existing position and I should prefer to await its report before coming to any conclusions about radical changes but, off the cuff, I would say that I would be one of the happiest Members in the House if we had alternative viewing in the single channel area.

Deputy Desmond boasted that the Labour Party had made a submission of their views to the review committee. I assume that all the suggestions put forward by him during the debate have been brought to the notice of the committee. He showed himself well informed about some of the committee's proceedings, which are, of course, conducted in private. He berated the Fianna Fáil Party for not having submitted the party's views on the future of broadcasting to the review committee. He apparently does not appreciate the fact that the Government and I as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs are members of the Fianna Fáil Party and that having appointed a very distinguished group of people to advise me on the future of broadcasting it would be impolite, to say the least, to turn around and offer to advise the review committee on this subject.

Deputy Richard Burke felt it was wrong of the Minister for the Gaeltacht to have publicly criticised RTE in respect of Radio na Gaeltachta programmes. There was also criticism about the suggestion that Ministers might make representations directly or, as I think it was put, covertly, to RTE. So, it appears that some Deputies think that Ministers should be precluded from criticising RTE in public or in private. For myself, I think every Deputy, every Minister and every citizen has a public right to criticise Radio Telefís Éireann.

Deputy Tom O'Donnell urged me to speed up the plans for providing improved reception of RTE sound programmes in Britain. As already announced, the Athlone transmitter is being replaced by a more powerful one which will give improved reception of RTE radio throughout Ireland and in a large part of Britain. I have already directed the authority to treat this as a matter of top priority. I understand the new transmitter is expected to be in operation early in 1975.

Deputy Richard Burke suggested that I should appoint an advisory council to which the authority or the director or both could turn for advice and referred to section 21 of the 1960 Act which provides for such a council. If the authority consider that such a council would be useful to them, I shall, of course, be prepared to consider a request from them for the establishment of one.

Deputy Burke also asked me when replying to let him know if it was my intention to extend the hours of broadcasting. The short answer to that is that I have no formal proposal from the authority for such an extension.

Many Deputies spoke in favour of developing multi-channel wire television systems as a means of providing a choice of programmes in Cork, Waterford and other parts where BBC and ITV programmes cannot be received at present. I sympathise with the desire to have a choice of television programme. I must agree with Deputy Burke that the solution of this problem on a national basis is not to be found by extension of relay systems. There are many difficulties in the way of extending multi-channel viewing facilities to areas which do not at present receive BBC and ITV programmes but I propose to mention only the main points here.

It is one thing to permit multi-channel wire television systems in areas in which external signals can be received off the air but it becomes a different matter when the external signals have to be transported by micro-wave link or coaxial cable for distribution in other areas. If this were permitted complicated copyright problems would arise and it is certain that wire television systems would be provided only in large centres of population because of the cost involved. If multi-channel wire television systems involving the use of micro-wave links were provided in certain cities and towns the question would inevitably arise of giving multi-channel reception facilities to the entire country. This would involve establishing a separate transmitter network for such external programme service to re-broadcast the signal. It is estimated that the cost of providing one such service would amount to something like £4 million.

Deputies Richard Burke and James Tully spoke about extending RTE television coverage into the North. This is something that I agree is highly desirable. In order to avoid interference with other transmissions as far as possible, the frequencies, power and siting of transmitters are regulated by international agreement. The frequencies, et cetera, allocated to Ireland by international agreement. would not enable RTE transmissions to be received over the Six Counties in Northern Ireland. Consideration is, however, being given at present to the question of finding a solution to this problem. I should like to assure Deputy Burke I am actively pursuing it.

Deputy L. Belton used figures quoted in a newspaper report to suggest that if the permitted number of outlets per mast were increased from 500 to 5,000 the total capital cost per house for wired television systems would drop from £9 to 90p per house. The Deputy has obviously misread the article because the figure of £4,500 quoted in it was stated to be the cost of materials alone for the mast capable of servicing 500 or 5,000 subscribers. My understanding is that the total capital cost of wired television systems works out at an average of between £20 and £30 per house and that the cost of the mast represents only about 20 per cent of the total. Increasing the number of outlets per mast would result in some reduction in the cost per house but the reduction would be far less spectacular than the Deputy suggested. Deputies Treacy and Belton felt that the present limit of 500 outlets for wired television system should be considerably increased. As Deputies are aware, the erection of multi-channel wired television systems was virtually prohibited for many years. Only systems servicing up to 10 houses or a single block of flats were allowed. The main reason for this limitation was the need to protect the revenue earning capacity of the national television service which could be expected to suffer if its legitimate advantage of better quality reception were to be taken away. An exception was made in 1966 for the Ballymun estate where special circumstances existed but it was not until March, 1970 that the Government decided to relax restrictions on multi-channel wired television development. I should like to emphasise that the position was to relax the restriction, not to remove it altogether. It was decided at that time to permit wired television systems to cater for not more than 500 outlets each.

Deputy Treacy in referring to wired television said that it was alleged— note "alleged"—that I had sabotaged RTE's plans to provide multi-channel reception facilities outside the present multi-channel area in a variety of ways, one of them being the insistence on a limit of 500 outlets per mast. This allegation of Deputy Treacy's is completely untrue. The plans described in the Sunday Independent article of 20th October, 1972, which have been referred to during this debate, were never submitted to my Department. As I have said, the limit of 500 outlets per system was adopted on the advice of RTE. I am well aware that individual systems can be designed to cater for more than 500 outlets each and that the existence of this restriction creates problems for those engaged in providing piped television systems. The question of increasing the present limit is under consideration at present but I cannot say what the result of that consideration will be.

Several Deputies referred to colour television on RTE. I have indicated on a number of occasions that I regard it as undesirable at present for RTE to introduce regular or studio transmissions in colour. Apart from the immediate expense for the authority, account must be taken of the effect on the economy as a whole, for example, the dissipation of national resources on imported colour television sets. The desirability was mentioned of producing a studio colour programme on special occasions, for example, for an important news conference. I have no doubt that RTE can make suitable arrangements for occasions of this kind and I would not object to such special arrangements.

Deputies Begley, Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins and John O'Leary had some very hard things to say about Radio na Gaeltachta. I am not responsible for the programmes or the day-to-day administration of Radio na Gaeltachta and I am naturally reluctant to intervene in such matters. Moreover, allowance has to be made for the fact that Radio na Gaeltachta has been on the air only since last Easter Sunday and is still finding its feet, so to speak. I am, however, concerned about the allegations made during the debate that the service is being used to cause mischief and disruptions in Kerry, that the programmes are very slanted and that there seems to be no editorial supervision.

Mr. Desmond

How is that if it is only finding its feet?

Mr. G. Collins

I wish to God you would keep your mouth shut. Keep your old mouth shut for God's sake because every time you open it you put your two great big left feet in it.

Mr. Desmond

If it is only finding its feet, how can the Minister arrive at conclusions already?

Mr. G. Collins

I should like to remind Deputies of the criticisms made by the Minister for the Gaeltacht on 19th August, 1972, in an address to Comhairle Radio na Gaeltachta. He said that the anti EEC bias in Radio na Gaeltachta's treatment of the EEC referendum question was quite unrepresentative of the views of Gaeltacht people and aroused considerable resentment. He went on to say:

I want to make it plain that people employed by Radio na Gaeltachta do not have a right to use the community-owned service to blatantly propagate their own particular viewpoint. The radio service is not their property. It belongs to the community and they have a right to expect a balanced and fair presentation.... It is not the aim of the Government nor, indeed, of any democratic party in Dáil Éireann to curb legitimate criticism or dissent. The Government do, however, have an obligation to the community to ensure fairness and balance and see that the broadcasting media are not monopolised by unrepresentative minority and sometimes subversive viewpoints.

I propose to raise with the authority the criticisms made during this debate which concern the question of Radio na Gaeltachta's observance of the principles of objectivity and impartiality laid down in section 18 of the Act of 1960.

Mr. Desmond

Are they going to get the hammer as well? Santa Claus is bringing some queer presents.

Mr. G. Collins

The Deputy will get his Christmas present at the next election. He will get it right between the two great big ears.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister should not over-react.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputies Coughlan and Treacy referred to the break in television transmissions which RTE recently introduced on Sunday afternoons. They questioned the suggestion in a report in the Sunday Independent of 12th November, 1972 that RTE's decision was the result of a refusal by me to authorise additional hours of television broadcasting on Sunday afternoons. That is not correct. Section 19 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, provides:

The periods fixed by the authority for broadcasting shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.

In 1964 the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs authorised an extension of television broadcasting hours by 2¾ hours per week for eight months of the year so as to permit regular Sunday afternoon programmes during the period October to May. In putting forward the proposal RTE had represented that otherwise there would be a gap between 2 p.m. and 4.45 on Sundays. In August 1969 the Minister authorised a further extension of three hours television broadcasting on Sundays again for eight months of the year. My approval was not sought for any alteration of the arrangements authorised in 1969 and RTE had no authority to make that change. I took the matter up with RTE. As a result they arranged that in future there would not be a gap in the Sunday afternoon programme. Our thanks are due to Mr. Brophy of the Sunday Independent who brought it to light.

Deputy Coogan asked about the costs and results of the recent drive against TV spongers. The drive is still continuing in some areas. Final figures are not therefore available. It is estimated that the total cost, including the pay of staff engaged on inspection work, will be between £60,000 and £70,000. Over 18,000 unlicensed sets were detected and it is estimated that 21,000 new licences were taken out in the period from 30th October to 30th November because of the campaign. As an aside, we will have to get them to call on "Wigmore" of the Sunday Independent next time they are around.

Deputy R. Burke suggested that the Trustee Act, 1958, may have been contravened when funds were made available from the RTE superannuation fund to help finance the new radio building. It would be a matter for the trustees of the superannuation fund to satisfy themselves that they could invest funds in this way and I am sure the trustees considered this matter carefully before coming to a decision.

Deputy Burke spoke about the RTE Symphony Orchestra and inquired if any request had been made to have the cost of the orchestra subsidised in order to relieve RTE of part of the cost. Requests of this kind have been made by RTE from time to time but such requests have always been turned down. The matter was last mentioned in connection with RTE's application for an increase in licence fees in 1970 but I am still satisfied there is no case for a separate subsidy for the orchestra.

Deputy O'Donnell asked if there were any plans for a shortwave station to broadcast to our exiles in other countries. In my opening statement on the Estimate on 18th November, 1971, I gave my reasons for coming to the conclusion that the provision of a shortwave service could not be justified and there has not been any change in the position.

Deputy Burke suggested a change be made in the date of taking out licences or, alternatively, that the RTE financial year should be changed to end on 31st July. If RTE submit proposals on either of these matters they will receive consideration.

Deputy Burke asked what efforts, if any, had been made to ensure that the National Savings Committee are given adequate facilities to publicise their activities in relation to the savings services. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the savings committee and it is he who decides what amount they may spend on publicity. He also arranges to make available to the committee whatever facilities are needed. The cost of publicity is charged to subhead B of the Vote for my Department, together with the cost of the Department's own publicity on savings.

The savings services provided by the Post Office are performed on behalf of the Minister for Finance. I suggest that Deputy Burke's question regarding the contribution the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks are making to the national economy would be more appropriate to the Minister for Finance. Statistics for the business of the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks are given on pages 25 and 26 of the notes circulated to Deputies.

Deputy L. Belton raised the matter of payment of old age pensions and social welfare allowances through the post. A change in the present method of payment would be a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare, but I am not sure what advantages the Deputy sees in the suggested arrangement. If cheques or pay orders were issued through the post, the recipients would be faced with the problem of cashing them and I am sure many would still be cashed in post offices. Deputies may be interested to know that more than 21 million social welfare payments were made in post offices in the last financial year.

In replying to the debate for my Department, it has been my custom to try to cover as fully as possible all points raised by Deputies during the debate. I am sure Deputies will understand that, because of exceptional circumstances this year which made it necessary for me to devote so much of my reply to the special affairs of RTE, it would not be possible to reply to all the points made with regard to my Department. However, in relation to points I may not have referred to, perhaps Deputies would write to me regarding any subjects on which they require information and I shall be glad to help as best I can.

It is a matter of regret to me that time did not permit me to discuss as fully as I would like the telephone service but I hope in the early months of next year to bring a Bill before the House which would enable capital moneys to be provided for telephone development in the next five years. The debate on that Bill will give me an opportunity to develop more fully my views on the position and prospects of the telephone service—a matter I know that is of great interest to Members of this House and to the community.

I wish to thank all Deputies who contributed constructively to the debate and to renew my thanks to the staff of my Department for their excellent service during the past 12 months. Finally, I think it is a shame and a disagree that we have not a few more people of the calibre of Deputy Cosgrave in the Fine Gael Party or Labour Party.

Mr. Coogan

May I ask the Minister two questions on some matters I raised. I referred to the lack of privacy in post offices. This enables people like the TV character Minnie in "The Riordans" to breathe down the necks of people who are trying to transact their business in the post office. This lack of privacy discourages people from using the post office savings facilities.

Mr. G. Collins

If the Deputy will agree, I will communicate with him on the matter.

Mr. Coogan

I also mentioned the form used for telegrams. I mentioned telegrams of congratulations which one sends on the occasion of marriages and also the telegrams sent on the occasion of bereavements.

Mr. G. Collins

I have been making inquiries on this point since the Deputy mentioned it in his speech and I find that such telegrams exist in other countries. Unfortunately, the administrations concerned did not find that they were an economic success.

Mr. Coogan

Perhaps the Minister could arrange to have a small extra cost charged for special telegrams and this might help.

Question put, and a division being demanded, it was postponed in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of 4th November, 1969, until 10.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th December, 1972.