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.