My initial reaction to this Bill, when circulated, was one of surprise in that I am quite sure the Minister is fully aware of and has encouraged the same legal arguments and had the same sort of discussion as I had as to its necessity in the first place. Indeed the same sort of discussion arose at the time of the setting up of Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited in April of this year. The important thing is that we ensure that we take the speediest road possible. There is the old saying that doctors differ and patients die. I am sure there has been eminent legal advice advanced on both sides of the argument just as we had in April last. However, it is important to ensure that the patient of telecommunications in Ireland does not die. I shall not go into the other arguments in any great detail here today because I did so in April. However, a different view prevailed at that time.
In so far as this Government and Minister feel it necessary to bring this Bill before the House they can be assured of our full support on its speedy passage. Time is now of the essence. I am fully appreciative of the urgent necessity for this Bill for the financing of the development programme of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I shall not go into the arguments as to why the Bill should or should not be introduced now; they have been debated many times before.
I notice from the Minister's statement that this Bill, if enacted, will be repealed when the major legislation being prepared comes before the House. We have precedents for this kind of operation in Irish Steel and the national oil corporation, for instance. It is important that this Bill be passed speedily in order that there can be this £100 million injection by way of private investment. A private company was set up last April in pursuance of Fianna Fáil policy to encourage private sector investment in the national development of our infrastructure, mainly roads and telecommunications. I am delighted to see that the Government so far have been pursuing that policy, though I clearly recall that when it was mooted here Deputies from the opposite side, some of them now Cabinet members, did not express any great faith in this type of policy. Deputy Kelly, particularly thought it was purely a fraudulent approach and he suggested a sum of only £20 million being available from the private sector.
This policy was based on the knowledge of the previous Government that there was room for private sector investment in infrastructural development. Such a programme requires all the investment possible and this is a sensible way to do it. Heretofore the Department responsible for telecommunications could work on a year-to-year basis only and therefore their planning was restricted. The Department suffered many times from the strong hand of the Department of Finance. Financial stringency was the order of the day at that time.
Fianna Fáil then proposed a five-year plan and I am glad to see that this is being followed up by the Government. Side by side with programme planning for development there must be financial planning and it must not be strictly on a year-to-year basis because without proper financial planning we cannot go out and acquire the 550 sites that are required for this programme, we cannot plan for the execution of the programme, there cannot be pre-ordering of stores and the erection of the required exchanges cannot be proceeded with.
That type of planning was not possible heretofore. I have always believed that in this field particularly there is scope for investment diversification. Financial people throughout the country used to say that if money for telecommunications were taken from the private sector it would be depriving other sectors of investment. I am sure that most if not all of the £100 million needed for this programme is there, awaiting the passing of this Bill. That money was available when I left office and I do not think matters have changed drastically since.
There is another reason why it is sensible to pursue policies of this kind. Since we joined the EMS and become subject to exchange controls there is more money here for investment. Of course we would be naive if we thought that all the money made here is invested here. Some Irish money turns up abroad, but with the introduction of exchange control more money became available here and the setting up of the telecommunications body earlier this year provided an opening for this investment. The Bill enables the Minister for Finance to give a State guarantee for such investment, whether the money will be made available through borrowing or leasing. This is the right course to pursue and I hope it will be successful.
There are people who argue we should not be going along this road. It is clear that the Bill before us is only an interim measure, a temporary vehicle by which a development programme can be got under way so that we will not have to await the budget every year to ensure that finances will be available. We appreciate that there are financial and economic problems and that they will be here for some time. We are witnessing a total restructuring of national economies because of the two oil crises: the wealth of the western world has been transferred to eastern countries and in this atmosphere it is right that we should use the opportunity we have to develop our infrastructure so that we will eradicate all the inadequacies from which we have been suffering.
We could debate the subject of telecommunications for months but we on this side do not propose to do so. For the reasons I have been giving, we want to see this Bill get a speedy passage because in these days telecommunications are not only of economic but of social benefit to our people. Telephones have become part of our lives. Families with members in America, England and elsewhere like to keep in touch with them and consequently the domestic demand for telephones continues. We have had an imbalance in regional development because some regions have inadequate communications systems, which renders them less competitive. Industrialists are reluctant to move into remote parts of the country until the communications services are improved in them. It is vital for anybody setting up industries, particularly industries manufacturing export goods, to have proper telecommunications. We live by our exports and therefore it has become vital that the faults and the gaps in our system be corrected rapidly. The stop-go policy has been pursued for too long and without a long-term commitment to finance, long-term planning cannot be done. I am not pointing the finger of blame in any direction because I was there and know for myself. The country will owe a deep debt of gratitude to those involved when this programme is finished. The intense efforts and real commitment to the job which I experienced in my short time as Minister are a real credit to those in the Department. I know the co-ordination and planning that went on. I know the bureaucratic problems there were with trying to overlap one Department with another. However, those problems were overcome in relation to this programme with monthly meetings and full reporting procedures. The staff are to be complimented on the way they set targets and the way they have been kept. At the end of 1984 hopefully this country will be able to boast of a telecommunications services up to and surpassing many such services in the EEC.
The programme and the money injected into the economy as a result of it creates considerable spin-offs throughout the economy. It is clear from the Central Bank report that had public capital investment not been at the level it was the growth rate would have been considerably less and there would have been less activity in the economy. I can never accept putting parts of a programme back, because it is wasting the initial investment and not bringing it forward on time, which is bad business. The Department of Finance put no cost on time. They say they will carry parts of a programme over until the next year not realising that the cost may have escalated by 20 per cent and that the completion of the programme will be delayed. That is a foolish argument especially in the area of telecommunications where there is a big market and customers are knocking on the door with their money in their hands for a telephone, telex and so on. It makes good sense to get the programme done as quickly as possible. It is important to introduce new technology as quickly as possible because with that comes a range of services which the public and business sector demand.
I had hoped the computerisation of directory inquiries would have been on stream at this stage. I know it was affected by an industrial dispute in the summer but hopefully we will have it soon so as to give relief to distraught operators trying to operate an ineffective service with old and outdated equipment and who are in the front line carrying the brunt of the public's outrage when they cannot get calls to the remoter parts of the country. When we look at France and see what they did from 1974 to 1981 using the same technology as we have it will be realised that this job can be done and if the motivation and momentum that was built up in the Department is continued it will be done. It is a major challenge to the Minister and the Department.
I see that the Minister is committed to having legislation to split up the Department. I know the legislation will be expensive but it is a step in the right direction. We will be taking out of the civil service the operation of a commercial venture which will be remunerative in years to come and satisfy the demands of industry, commerce and the social demands of the people. It will be a great plus in the marketing strategy of the IDA as they try to bring more foreign investment here.
This programme made its impact on the job situation. We held exhibitions informing manufacturers of the opportunity it held out for them. We are all interested in seeing that most of the money is spent in Ireland. It is a massive amount of money by any standards. No other country is spending £221 million on telephone development this year. I know it will cost more next year but that is the peak point in the programme and it will taper off then.
It is in all our interests to ensure that there is the same commitment from this Government as we had because this is one way we can contribute to the serious balance of payments deficit. It will open up job opportunities for young people. Training centres should be developed. I know that arrangements were made to train people abroad.
Perhaps the Minister will let me know when the new digital exchange in his own town will be opened. I do not want to see Kells, County Meath, getting ahead of Longford-Westmeath in the digital race. It is a milestone in the telecommunications system here. I am surprised the exchange has not been opened and if it is delayed for much longer Kells might beat us to it.
There is nothing contentious about the Bill. There is a provision about the memorandum and articles not being changed without the consent of the Minister. At first glance I thought this was unnecessary but when one realises we are dealing with public funds and so on, if it was felt it was necessary there is no harm in having it.
I hope when the State give guarantees about borrowing or leasing money it will not give double security. Financial institutions are greedy and love to be secured two or three times over. I hope we will not give them mortgages or debentures on our buildings or exchanges. There is a State guarantee and, if that is not good enough for them, then they should be told clearly that that is as far as it can go. Recently financial houses and institutions have been looking for double and treble security on their pound of flesh. This is a State company and I would have thought that in those circumstances financial institutions would not ask for a guarantee. Apparently they have done so. If it were a case of foreign investment I could understand the request for a State guarantee but I cannot understand it in the case of domestic financial institutions.
There is one aspect that worries me. There have been reports in the newspapers and elsewhere with regard to cutbacks in the Department. Surely there is some contradiction here. We have an investment of £21 million in development this year. I sincerely hope long-term planning in this particular sphere will not be affected by cutbacks. Are building contracts being pushed back? Is it true there will be cuts of some 20 or 30 per cent in these contracts? I hope the Minister will allay my fears in this regard. I listened attentively to the Minister for Finance last July when he talked about a ban on recruitment in the public service. I understood such a ban would not apply in the productive sector. I hope that is still the situation and that there will be no cheeseparing on staff in the productive sector. One could understand a ban on recruitment in the non-productive sector. There is at the moment a shortage of jointing staff in the productive sector. It is a problem this year and it will be a problem next year. I was very well aware of the shortage of staff in certain areas. This is staff where time is of the essence from the point of view of training and I hope the Minister will allay my fears about cutbacks in such staff.
If public finance cannot be made available then investment companies should be invited to do the job. Remember, when financial strictures were applied in the past there were situations in which the equipment was available but not the exchange. There were situations in which both the equipment and the exchanges were available but there was no money to do the necessary cabling. The result was that nobody benefited from the initial investment. I hope that situation will not arise again. There are problems. There always will be but this Department is not similar to other Departments where one can have cutbacks in finance and recruitment. The situation in this Department is not as simple as it may be in other Departments and the bureaucratic pen must not be permitted to make cuts in regard to this Department. It can cut its £50 million off this and £20 million off that in other less important non-productive Departments. If cuts are made in this Department in one particular area they will create problems in some other areas. The situation must be looked at as a whole. Telex exchanges necessitate capital expenditure and so they should be included in the capital programme. Actually I put that right when I was Minister. If there must be stringency let that stringency be applied in administrative areas and not in areas where it will affect a major development programme because, if it is applied, there will then be adverse repercussions on industrial development. Above all, do not turn back the clock. We must be realistic. Stores pruchased from abroad are naturally influenced by currency fluctuations. Allowances must be made for that type of fluctuation. Other Departments do not have to contend with it but the area we are dealing with is a special area and one that must be given the proper treatment that it needs as well as the necessary finances to allow the Department go ahead with their programme.
I hope the Minister takes this opportunity of telling me that there are no cutbacks and that there will continue to be the job opportunities that are there now. It is my earnest hope that this programme will continue in the manner in which it was started, that it will continue through this year, next year and the year after and that at the end of the day we will have a telecommunications network that we can be proud of, that we will have available the most modern technology which in turn will provide an offshoot of services. In this way we will be removing one of the greatest obstacles to national development.
