(Dublin South-Central): When I reported progress I was speaking of the difficulties that had to be overcome by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. During the years the Department suffered from adverse criticism that was not justified. It can be said that governments did not give sufficient capital to expand the area of telecommunications along the lines that should have been adopted. During the years of economic expansion in the 1960s and the 1970s we concentrated to a large extent on industrial development. The whole emphasis of the then Department of Industry and Commerce was on increasing industrial output and on creating new industries. This was laudable but the weakness in the campaign then being conducted was that we did not concentrate sufficiently on telecommunications which are vital for economic advancement. I have no doubt that such economic advancement has been impeded because we did not inject sufficient capital into this sector.
One of the most important developments that took place in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was a review group that was set up by the then Minister, Deputy Faulkner. This was the first positive step taken to consider the workings of the Department and how they could be improved. A decision was reached by that review group and within a short time two interim boards were established to consider the setting up of a semi-State body for postal services and also for telecommunications. These were set up under the chairmanship of Michael Smurfit dealing with telecommunications and Fergal Quinn dealing with the postal section. The Bill before the House gives effect to the decisions that were made.
It is my belief that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were starved of capital during the years by successive governments. In 1979 the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs provided £650 million of capital to allow the Department to expand and to meet modern requirements. The decision taken at that time laid the foundation for the development of the Department for many years and if it is followed through to its logical conclusion it will bring about major improvements in our telecommunications and postal services. The decision taken will allow the sectors concerned to operate independently. How the review group reached their conclusion and the decision they took are matters of importance.
I would like to quote from the Posts and Telegraphs Review Group Report. which is also quoted in the Minister's speech:
Each service is a major commercial enterprise in its own right. Each service faces grave problems but the problems are essentially different and require different approaches. The telecommunications services are so seriously inadequate and the problems of development, from the present base, are so formidable as to require the full-time, single-minded, attention of a commercially motivated board and chief executive. Organisational links with a major and fundamentally different service would be a distraction and would also carry the risk of a spillover of problems. The link also gives rise to risk of cross-subsidisation between the services. The management of the very large labour-intensive postal service also demands the full-time, single-minded attention of its own commercially motivated board and chief executive. In a sense it faces more difficult problems than the telecommunications service, which will enjoy natural growth for many years to come. The postal service will require the highest skills of marketing, imagination and innovation in the immediate future. In the longer term the service faces technological changes which seems likely to have a major impact on its volume of business, and profound implications for pricing, profitability, personnel and marketing.
That was the basis for the review board's decision to form two semi-State companies. It is the proper policy for an organisation such as this. I have some idea of Posts and Telegraphs having being a Minister of State there for a few years and it is far more business oriented than any other Department. It differs fundamentally from all the other Departments. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs are running a business seven days a week; it is in the field of selling and marketing. The telecommunications side is also on the same lines but on a technological basis. The two boards will have the added advantage of trained personnel who have vast experience in telecommunications and in the postal service. Because of that these two semi-State bodies will have an advantage over many of the semi-State bodies which were set up down through the years and had to recruit their own staff and train them from the very start. I am convinced that these two boards will do an excellent job and that it was the correct decision to set up two boards.
I mentioned the difficulties which I thought the postal sector would encounter in the years ahead. Unless we contain the postal charges the majority of companies, especially industrial companies which take up the largest part of the postal service, will seek alternative ways to do business. But if the postal service is properly marketed with the outlets that we now have of over 2,000 sub-post offices it can certainly expand and create new business. That will be the task of the semi-State bodies.
Speaking generally, a lot of progress has been made in the Department over the past number of years. Some years ago there was closer co-operation between the Board of Works and the Department and about 500 buildings were scheduled to be built throughout the country. Years ago staff relations in the Department were not as good as they should be. But these have improved considerably. There were strikes, but let us not think for one moment that this Department have had excessive strikes. Indeed, if we look at the history of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs we will see that there were very few strikes. But after extensive negotiations agreement was reached with the engineering staff which led to greater productivity. These structures can be carried into the semi-State bodies. The staff relations section within the Department was understaffed but that was restructured and additional staff allocated. These improvements have been taking place over the past number of years and will be handed over to the new boards and the new boards will be able to benefit from these improvements and carry out further improvements in the whole structure of the organisation.
In the newspapers I have seen certain doubts expressed by various spokesmen about whether this is the right decision or not. One spokesman said he thought there should be only one board. But one board with 30,000 people would be too cumbersome and impossible to manage. Progressive companies will always try to minimise numbers because they know perfectly well that they can be run more effectively. So the decision to have two semi-State bodies is a practical one. It would be too cumbersome to have one board because there are two different types of operation being carried out; One is high technology and the other is marketing. Therefore it is wise to set up two boards. I quote Joseph O'Malley the political correspondent of the Sunday Independent, on Sunday, 23 May 1982 in a paragraph headed “Telecommunications”:
Perhaps the only major decision taken in recent years involving a fundamental change which has been implemented speedily. In July, 1978 a Posts and Telegraphs Review Group was set up. A year later it had completed the report which the Government immediately accepted.
It recommended that posts and telegraphs should be split into two State companies — the legislation was discussed in the Dáil on Wednesday — and that an accelerated development programme costing some £650 million (at 1979 prices) should be undertaken. The purpose is to transform the whole telecommunications service and raise it to EEC standards by 1984 — with the annual rate of connection of 140,000.
This reform is remarkable for the speed of analysis — one year; decision — immediate; implementation — five years.
That is an indication of the work that has taken place. I would like to congratulate the present Minister for processing this Bill so speedily and bringing it into the House at this time. I do not mean for one moment that there was not consultation with the various interested bodies. Of course there was. A Green Paper was issued on this matter in May 1980 and this gave accommodation to all interested parties to make submissions to the Department and this they did. I understand about 140 submissions were made from the interested Departments. We had the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals in 1981, more than a year ago. This means there has been time for consultation.
I appreciate that this was a very difficult Bill to prepare. When the British Telecommunications Bill was going through the House of Commons it was said to be one of the longest and most detailed Bill ever to go through the Commons. We are fortunate that this Bill has only 105 sections embracing a broad and complex issue. With this in mind I believe we are on the right track and consultations will have to take place between interested bodies and unions.
I read Terry Quinlan's statement on this Bill. I know the unions were expressing their opinions on it over the past week. If they have any doubts, the Minister will discuss it with them and sort out their fears. It is of vital importance that we have proper staff relations. In An Bord Poist there are about 9,500 people employed and about 20,000 in An Bord Telecom. The Bill guarantees wages, salaries and superannuation of present civil servants. Many people employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have given long and loyal service and it is important that they be given the guarantees they require. I have no doubt the Minister will iron out all their problems because it is very important that we have good staff relations in these two State-sponsored bodies which will, in the long term, affect the economic and social development of this country. If we do not have good staff relations we need only look around us to see the consequences of such a state of affairs. That situation will affect everybody, even old age pensioners, because everybody requires a good telecommunications service. A telephone is no longer a luxury; it is an accepted part of our lives. That is why I am so concerned that we will have good staff relations.
The present civil servants who will be joining the State-sponsored bodies should do so willingly, knowing the companies will be able to pay their way. That is why I am very concerned about the financing of these companies. There is nothing so frustrating or depressing for an employee than to read at the annual general meeting that the company are losing money. When these companies are set up I hope the Government will not have to give them grants beyond what is written in this Bill. They should be set up with a proper financial structure.
I note from the Bill that superannuation for retiring employees will be met from current income of both bodies. I hoped these bodies would not be burdened in this way. Telecommunications is an expanding industry. It is the only product of which we do not have an ample supply. We cannot meet the present demand. This is a growth industry which will pay its way in years to come. It will need a huge capital investment at the start and there are already sufficient funds provided for their capital requirements.
As I said, we must ensure the staff willingly join these two bodies and that all their guarantees will be met. I read recently that Terry Quinlan, Secretary of the Post Office Workers' Union, has reservations about certain sections of this Bill and I hope they will be ironed out to the satisfaction of all. I did not hear any doubts expressed about the telecommunications section.
The standard of service has improved considerably over a number of years and there has been a very big increase in the number of phones installed. It is hoped to have 80,000 to 90,000 installed this year. Considerable advances have been made in various parts of the country, and these are probably the areas where new telecommunications centres have been established, but I cannot say the same for parts of Dublin. The number of phones installed in greater Dublin has not matched that in other parts of the country, but I can see the problem as regards laying cables in built-up areas. There has been a great deal of industrial development in greater Dublin and a very big increase in the number of urban dwellings. This growth has been accelerated more in Dublin than in provincial towns.
I have had several communications from industrialists complaining they had to wait a considerable length of time for telephones to be installed. They may have had just one phone, but one phone for a commercial company is not much good; they want a number of telephones and a telex. This is vitally important for economic expansion. We must concentrate on that sector. Down the years we have concentrated on IDA grants for factories but we have overlooked allocating sufficient funds to telecommunications in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. There is no sense in allocating sufficient funds for the IDA without giving an adequate allocation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs because one cannot work without the other. A new look was taken at this matter in 1978, when the concept of the allocation of £650 million to semi-State bodies for capital development was considered. We can now hope for a better service from the postal service. The problems with the service everywhere, but in Dublin in particular of which I have personal experience, must be solved by an improvement in our postal situation.
Many people have complained to me of having paid their deposit perhaps seven or eight months ago and still await connection of the telephone service. The guideline is supposed to be three months, or four at the most. I find it surprising that people would be experiencing such delays.