A further quote from this letter to the Taoiseach of 19th February, 1971, is paragraph 7:
The only ways in which expenditure could be held down to £9.6 million is by dismissing men (unskilled and semi-skilled) by asking works contractors to slow down necessary works, deferring the placing of new contracts if at all possible, and by asking contractors for stores to defer deliveries or accept cancellation of contracts.
Then paragraph 9 :
The cutting down of staff and of contracts work would slow down the necessary improvement of telephone service in exchanges and on trunk routes where it is less than satisfactory at present; reduce the rate of conversion of manual exchanges to automatic—something we would be very sorry to do because the conversion rate is already too slow and manual service is becoming increasingly unacceptable; and severely restrict the connection of new subscribers' lines. We would aim at carrying out removals and installing priority category lines where possible and lines involving little work on stores. It would probably be necessary to refuse connection of long rural lines.
Unfortunately, that catalogue of evils resulting from cuts of this kind has materialised. Cassandra was right. The wrong decisions were taken and we are paying for these decisions now, and I took it a little hard from Deputy Collins that he should now lecture me as he once much more rightly lectured his colleagues on the necessity for providing capital. What I would hope seriously is that the consequences we have seen will register with all those concerned as they will register with my own colleagues, and that we will see that there is a continuity. As Deputy Collins knows better than anyone else in the House, continuity of capital investment is what is required. You cannot stop and then start again, or if you do, you are in chaos. From what I have heard from Deputy Collins and from what I have seen of all he has done on this subject, I am sure his support will be forthcoming—and the support of his colleagues while in Opposition—for an expanded telephone capital programme; but, even so, I am afraid we still have to pay the price for the past and have to pay the price for the mistakes in 1970 and 1971 because this is a system in respect of which we have to plan for years ahead and we are feeling the blast of that, but please, of 1970-1971, not 1957.
I will not go into any detail about this aspect of our Government's plans, programmes and prospects in this reply to this debate for the good reason that I will be coming back here before very long with a Telephone Capital Bill on which we will have a full opportunity to go into the matter very thoroughly but I would like to take up a few other points which were made. As regards service-again still on telephonesand staffing complaints, Deputy Collins asked me whether I had studied the report of the Survey on Management Procedures in Telecommunications Organisations. This is the report submitted by Swedish experts which was submitted, I think, just before my predecessor left office. I have read it and have discussed it with officials of my Department. In general, we accept the broad principles underlying this report which are in favour of further decentralisation, further delegation of responsibility and rationalisation in general. The team involved recognised that this will take some time to carry out and they indicated tentative time schedules. What my Department is now studying are the problems involved in the implementation of the main principles of the report and this requires discussions with other parties. The trade unions have a very important interest in this and these matters will have to be discussed with them.
Deputy Dowling suggested that telephone components should be manufactured in Ireland. In fact, considerable quantities of stores and equipment used by the Departments are of Irish manufacture. During a recent period of 12 months, the value of such purchases amounted to £2.4 million. A provisional five year contract for the supply of exchange equipment has been entered into with L.M. Ericsson of Stockholm, who for some years past have been successful in getting most of such orders in competitions open to all manufacturers. This contract will enable the manufacture of equipment to be planned by the company well in advance and delivery and installation to be effected more speedily. A factory premises for this company is currently being erected in Athlone.
I am skipping some of the more detailed points for the moment but any Deputy who feels that I have not covered his point can take it up with me, either by written or oral parliamentary question or direct communication, as he chooses. Deputy Collins did make a point about the recruiting of extra staff for telephone development. I can assure the Deputy that the staff concerned is being expanded as quickly as possible. The Department is in the process of recruiting additional engineers, technician trainees and trainee installers. It will, however, be some time before this additional staff becomes effective. For instance, it takes about four years to train a skilled technician, so that in this area also if the service has been starved in the past, the malnutrition will continue to tell in the present time. Examination of means of stepping up the pace of telephone development generally will naturally cover the possibility of improving procedures in that regard.
Questions were asked about the size of the waiting list. The number of recorded applications for exchange lines on the waiting list on a recent date was 33,000, the figures having risen in recent years as follows : at 31st December, 1970, 14,600; for the same date in 1971, 20,650; for the same date in 1972, 30,900; and at 31st March this year, 32,000. The figures shown include lines in course of installation, orders with the engineers for attention, and a proportion of ineffective applications which will not be proceeded with. Applying a percentage based on experiences of the numbers of probable cancellations, the effective waiting list on 31st March, 1973, is estimated at around 29,000.
Taking account of the number of telephones at present being installed, our present effective waiting list represents roughly about one year's demand at the 1972-73 connection rate and we are all agreed that this is very unsatisfactory and disquieting and must be abated. Applications for telephones increased last year by an unprecedented one-third over the figure for the previous year. There is no sign of any abatement in the demand and the latest figure for the current year shows that it was almost half as high again as in the corresponding period last year. There is little doubt that the stimulating effect of our entry into the EEC, increased prosperity and the utility of the telephone in present-day conditions for all kinds of purposes are among the factors which have contributed to the soaring demand.
In order to meet demand at its current rate and effect a reduction in the waiting list within the current financial year, it is considered that the connection rate in 1972-73 would need to be roughly doubled, that is, raised to well over 50,000. Unfortunately, there is no prospect of reaching this figure in the short term. It is not a field in which you can plan and achieve things in a short time. Indeed, if achievable, such a connection rate would impose an intolerable extra load on the present system and some Deputies have made that point. Extra equipment must first be installed in existing exchanges, new exchanges must be provided in certain areas, extra circuits must be provided on trunk routes. The numbers of skilled staff have to be increased. Installation work is in progress in numerous exchanges; extra trunk lines are on the way; and relief will begin to be apparent in a number of areas later this year. Orders for new plant and equipment now amount to over £25 million.
In view of the explosive nature of the demand it would be rash, at this stage, to make any promises as to when the waiting list will be eliminated or, indeed, drastically reduced. Priority must be given to providing a reasonable standard of service for existing subscribers, even if that involves an increased waiting list for some time. My Department are determined to press on just as hard as they can and, above all, as continuously as they can, with the solution of this problem. We believe we will have the full support of the entire Government, something which, unfortunately, was lacking to my predecessor at one critical period.
I should say something about the quality of the telephone service. Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Desmond, and Deputy R.P. Burke referred to the quality of the telephone service. Mention was made in particular of delay, crossed lines, difficulties in dialling certain numbers, and so on, such as we have all experienced. Difficulties of the kind mentioned, and many others such as dialling failures, wrong numbers, et cetera, are due mainly to overloading of the exchanges and associated equipment, as I mentioned in my opening statement. This results in congestion in much the same way that heavy traffic will cause a temporary hold-up in a street or a road. Repeat call attempts add to the difficulties.
Congestion on the automatic system can have various side effects. One is to throw a quite abnormal volume of calls for assistance on the operators in the manual exchanges, with consequent adverse effect on the speed of answer. We are suffering from shortage of spare plant which should be available and already installed in exchanges and elsewhere, but is not, to meet the mounting demand. The increase of one-third in the application rate for new telephones last year, followed by an even higher rate this year, is indicative of the still greater potential demand which exists if it could be met quickly and fully. Provision of reserves of plant to cater for a steep rate of growth will require heavy expenditure of capital. I shall be coming back to the House about that.
As mentioned in my opening statement, equipment valued at over £20 million was on order on 31st March last. This figure has since been increased to over £25 million. Many other urgently needed schemes are in various planning stages. Priority is being given to raising the quality of service for existing subscribers. This does not mean that there will be any slakening of effort to provide telephones for new subscribers but, in areas where existing plant is overloaded, temporary restrictions on the connection of new lines are unavoidable in the interests of all concerned.
Again I am obliged to skip a certain number of points at this stage. I should like to say something about kiosks and I hope to come back to that. I also want to come to the postal services. At this point, however, I want to say something about broadcasting. The curious thing is that some Deputies found fault with me—and it was a legitimate criticism—for devoting too high a proportion of my opening remarks to the question of broadcasting. I certainly agree that a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who devoted all his mind to broadcasting and was not thinking about the other problems in his Department would be derelict in his duty. The House is quite right to be vigilant about this.
However, I note with some amusement that, some of the Deputies who found fault with me for devoting too high a proportion of my speech to broadcasting, themselves devoted a much higher proportion of their speeches to it. For example, Deputy Haughey who chided me a little on this, devoted four times as much of his speech to broadcasting as he devoted to other aspects of the Department's work, while my proportion was fifty-fifty. If the Deputy checks the record he will be rather amused to see what he will find.
In some ways broadcasting is a subject for debate in a sense that some of the other more technical aspects of this Estimate are not. They do not lend themselves so easily to it. Nor are the issues affecting them—and this is another way of saying the same thing, I suppose—so controversial. There is something quite controversial about broadcasting in its nature. It is natural enough that, not only myself, but other Members of the House should have devoted quite a good deal of time to this matter. I should like to say something about it now.
First, I should like to say I am very glad that the new authority were so generally welcomed on both sides of the House, in the Press and, I believe, also by the profession generally including broadcasters. Only one appointment was somewhat criticised and that I think on grounds of a misunderstanding. Some Northern commentatorssome of them writing to our Presscommented on my choice of Mr. John Robb as not being representative of Ulster Protestants. Of course I did not have the temerity to purport to appoint a representative of Ulster Protestants. That is not something which anyone here could do, or claim to do. I wish expressly to exclude the idea that I was nominating such a representative.
I was nominating a distinguished individual who has in a quite unusual degree something which is not easy to acquire in the conditions of Northern Ireland, that is, the respect of both communities there, the respect even of people who do not agree with his views. I do not necessarily agree with all his views myself, but he is a valuable member of the authority. He brings not a representative voice but his own individual voice and his own individual intelligence on to this board. I think he can help the authority very much in all questions pertaining to Northern Ireland. Some people suggested I should have appointed A, B or C, well-known, distinguished, respected. Northern politicians of one stripe or another. I did not appoint politically active people to the authority from the south and I did not see why I should do it from the north either. In general, this is fairly well understood.
I am glad that the general idea of moving in the direction of an open broadcasting area was welcomed here. Many Deputies drew attention—very rightly—to the many difficulties with which this whole thing is strewn, and to the fact that it will be quite a long time before we can achieve anything like the full extension which I indicated was desirable and which Depu ties and the public generally see as desirable. We can begin to move in that way.
On the question of a second channel, the use of piped television, and a number of other matters I am somewhat inhibited in my capacity to reply at this stage. I have received the second interim report of the Broadcasting Review Committee. It has been laid before both Houses. It makes certain important recommendations in this area. I am not in a position to tell the House at this point of any decisions about this report. I sought it as a matter of urgency and I received it on 31st May. As soon as I received it, I referred it for study in my Department and to the RTE Authority for their comments since, of course, it affects them in many ways. They have promised me their comments before the end of this month. During next month I will put my recommendations in this area before the Government and, having got the decisions of the Government, I will be in a position to make an announcement. We are committed to proceed in these matters with urgency but, of course, it has to be deliberate and consultative urgency.
All Deputies, I think, welcomed the idea of making RTE television available generally in Northern Ireland. On that, Deputy Collins referred to his Government having laid the groundwork for this. I do not think really that any of that groundwork laying has been of any very distinct service in that the previous Government, without having received the agreement of the British Government, approached the International Frequency Registration Board on this for the strengthening of the signal into Northern Ireland—the Carlingford Lough project—and an objection was raised, very predictably and very quickly by the British, which, in fact, in practice amounted to a veto, and so we were back to square I, or not quite as good as square I, I would think. I do not think this approach, the approach of trying to do it through an international body over the head of our neighbours could have worked and, measuring my words rather carefully, I do not think the recollection of it is necessarily helpful in the present stage of our negotiations. These, of course, still continue. When I met Sir John Eden it was decided there would be talks between officials; the groundwork has been laid for these and the official talks will, I understand, begin shortly.
Deputy Collins urged that the provision of the new high-powered transmitter to replace the Athlone transmitter be speeded up and Deputy Brugha and Deputy O'Brien also referred to the need for improving reception for the Irish people. There will be no avoidable delay in completing this project, which is in the top priority category, and it may be possible, in fact, to improve on the completion date. RTE now say the transmitter may be in service by the end of 1974. This transmitter will, of course, also improve one aspect to which a number of Deputies rightly referred, namely, reception in Britain, especially in the London area, of RTE. This is also a matter I discussed with Sir John Eden. He tells me that the interference which does at present exist by Radio London with our transmissions is a temporary thing, but it will go on, I am afraid, for a considerable time, for some two years in fact; however, when that channel is shifted and our new transmitter is available, reception in Britain will certainly be better than it has ever been.
Deputy Collins referred lo my appointment of Mr. Nicholas Simms as my special assistant. The position is that Mr. Simms has been seconded from his post in RTE for a period of one year to act as special assistant to the Minister. He remains on the same salary as he had in RTE and will return to RTE at the point on the scale he would have reached had he remained with RTE. He derives no financial or other advantage from his temporary secondment to the Department and, in these circumstances, the charges of nepotism hardly hold water.
Deputy Collins, and I am grateful lo him for this, put on the record a statement I made while in opposition about the need that any Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would have for some assistance and advice outside the regular mill. I decided when I went there that I did need such advice and help and assistance. I needed somebody who would be close to me, with whom I could discuss things informally, somebody who understood RTE, having worked in it. Having confidence in Mr. Simms, I decided I wanted him. I knew, because he was related to me, because he is my son-in-law, that this would give ground for criticism. I considered which was more important, the proper and effective discharge of the duties entrusted to me or the possibility of receiving some criticism. I decided I should do my best with my job and get the people whom I most needed. I informed the Taoiseach of the situation and of Mr. Simm's relationship to me before proceeding. Deputy Collins has accused me of concealing a material fact, to wit, the fact apparently that Nicholas Simms is my son-in-law. As Mr. Simms was married to my daughter in St. Patrick's Cathedral in this city a few years back, and as I gave the bride away, I think Deputy Collins is regarding me as unusually naive if he thinks I could conceal that fact. I am prepared to accept whatever verdict the people and those who are interested in these matters render on that and I shall not refer to it further.
With regard to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Oireachtas, Deputy Collins seemed to suggest that this is a solo idea of mine. He does not seem to have listened to that much-discussed verbatim broadcast of the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis because, if he had, he would have heard the following passage from the Taoiseach's speech there:
I should also add that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has authorised negotiations between RTE and the appropriate Dáil committee on the question of broadcasting Dáil debates on an experimental basis and, in the first instance at least, on sound radio only. While this whole question has several aspects of some difficulty and complexity the Government is anxious in general to open up our democratic process to the, I hope. sympathetic observation of the people.
That is the statement made by the Taoiseach and that is, in fact, Government policy. I understand the Committee on Procedure and Privileges are now seized of this matter and they are aware that they can call on RTE for any advice and co-operation that may be required.
Several people made the point that this would be a very complex and difficult thing and that the problem of selecting from Dáil debates would be almost insuperable. I do not think that is really so. For example, as regards sound broadcasting. I think this would probably initially be proposed as a trial; everything we say here would be recorded and then it would be edited in RTE, very much as they edit the transcript of our statements here already. We have not found them at fault in their editing of that and I see no reason why they should be at fault in the editing of what we say live. If there are fears, it could be introduced for an experimental period of, say, one year and there could be a small committee of the House to keep the operation under review to see how it worked, if people feel nervous about it. I do not think on balance there is really a problem any more than there is in the Press reports of the Dáil. Then there is the problem of would the broadcasting of our proceedings affect the proceedings themselves. I suppose it would, but not necessarily in a negative way. It might lead to a greater interest reciprocally by both the Deputies and the public in what was happening. There was a suggestion that speakers might become histrionic in order to catch the ear of the media. I think they would probably find that that would not pay very well because I do not think the media work that way. I think people would get more response to a reasoned speech dealing with the subject. I think that would be the evolution. At any rate there is no need to assume in advance that it would not. I have discussed this with people in other countries, with people in Denmark, for example, where they are in the habit of having this and, according to them, after a while people simply forget about it: they take it for granted just as we take the presence of the Press for granted. We are, of course, aware that the Press are there and we are also aware that our statements may or not be reported in the morning; it does have some effect on us and so would broadcasting, but I do not think it would be necessarily an unhealthy effect.
A number of criticisms have been made of RTE's programming and so on. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into those in the sense that detailed questions of programming are for RTE itself. The members of the new authority and the director-general of RTE will certainly take into consideration the remarks that have been made here.
I would like to say something about section 31. I have said we will be removing section 31 but I also made it clear in my opening statement that we do not intend just to throw out section 31 and leave the situation to float. I said, at column 878, Volume 265, of the Official Report of 10th May:
The autonomy I have in mind for the authority is not anything anarchic or arbitrary but a freedom defined and limited by clearly specified law. Instead of the incalculable and unpredictable varieties of possible responsibility placed on an authority by the existing section 31 subsection (1), the new legislation would provide explicit definition of the responsibilities of the authority. I am in consultation with the Attorney General as to how best the responsibilities of the authority can be defined in relation to, for example, the activities of illegal organisations, in such a way as to protect the legitimate functions of RTE in relation to news gathering, analysis and discussion—all very important functions—while protecting the paramount interest of the community in peace and the observation of law.
Various issues arise here. In so far as the intent of section 31 is to give power to ensure that RTE is not used to advertise, glamourise, et cetera, the IRA, this purpose will be safeguarded in the legislation specifically. Of course, section 31, as we all know, but not everybody who talks about it outside knows, says nothing whatever about the IRA and if we had a Government, headed perhaps by Deputy Blaney, the powers under section 31 could be used to compel RTE to treat the “heroes” of the republican army with appropriate respect. A directive of that kind could go out. It is conceivable. So section 31 is no safeguard for anything. On the contrary, it can introduce any form of arbitrary intervention whatever. I grant that the Minister's directive did deal with that but we want to cut out the arbitrary element in this. It is not a question of, even in a sense, giving greater freedom; it is a question of saying where the limits are so that everybody knows where the limits are.
I referred in a statement to the Irish Transport and General Workers Union to the idea of setting up an appeals tribunal and I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity of saying this first here because inevitably, and through no fault of the Deputies opposite, discussion about it was somewhat confused. I did not have the appeals tribunal in mind as a kind of substitute for section 31 as some people suggested. What I had in mind was that section 18 of the Act puts certain responsibilities on to the authority, responsibilities for preserving impartiality. Who is to be the ultimate judge of the impartiality? I have found under the previous Government the Minister, as the final judge, ruled in relation to a post office dispute, a dispute affecting Lettermore Post Office. He applied pressure to RTE—I can quote chapter and verse and will—to induce them to present that dispute in what he regarded as a balanced way. He may even have been right. RTE may have been quite wrong about Lettermore and the Minister may have been dead right. It is quite possible. I have not investigated the merits of the particular dispute. What is quite certain is that the Minister was a party to that dispute and as a party he ruled on what constituted impartiality. With due respect to Deputy Collins that is not a power he should have. He was tempted to abuse it. He did abuse it. I might have attempted to abuse it too if I become hot about the collar about a post office dispute and saw something which I regarded as shocking on RTE. I might reach for my big stick. I hope I would go out and take a walk and cool down a bit. I might but I should not have that power. If I can be party I should not be arbiter. I think this is basic.
Similarly, the Minister told RTE that they should not have on television a given Opposition Deputy who happens to be your humble servant, the present Minister. Again, he may have been right in a sense that that Deputy, whom I can look at now in a certain perspective as an Opposition Deputy, went on television and had three long programmes. He went on as a literary man but the cloven hoof of the politician showed and Deputy Collins was irritated. I might have been irritated too if the roles had been reversed but the Minister should not have the power to say to RTE what is the balanced and impartial degree of coverage you can allow Opposition Deputies to have. That is wrong. It is open to abuse.
I am not about to say that the two particular interventions are even all that bad. I am much more concerned with the power that exists and the power that can be abused and with, it seems to me, the necessity to have in this area a balance, not about violence, to have an appeals tribunal. As regards the use of the air waves for the encouragement, if it should happen, of political violence and the overthrow of the State et cetera, ultimate power must rest with this Parliament and with the Government responsible to this Parliament. I am not seeking to duck out of that responsibility. I want that built into the Act and I want it to be solidly there but I do not want to be tempted the next time there is a row about a sub-post office to wave the big sticks of sections 6 and 31 over the heads of RTE and to have them left in the position where their judge is the man who is accusing them because that has been the case.
Deputy O'Malley, who was a little cross, attacked me, and he praised Deputy Collins for his handling of these matters. However, when the two gentlemen were in office Deputy O'Malley wrote to Deputy Collins in quite severe and critical terms about RTE "getting away with murder". Deputy Collins wrote back to Deputy O'Malley a very interesting letter which I wish to put on record, not only for its historical interest although we are not primarily concerned with history here, but as an illustration of the kind of difficulties that are involved here. It is a very interesting letter in more ways than one.
This letter, dated 17th July, 1970, from Deputy Collins, then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to Deputy O'Malley, his colleague and then Minister for Justice is a reply to one written to him by the Minister for Justice. I do not propose to read out the letter of the Minister for Justice because it is rather long and it does not bear so crisply—it is not if I may say so, so well written—on the matters we are concerned with here.
