Deputy Maurice Manning was in possession.
Private Members' Business. - Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, 1982: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Before the adjournment I had been talking about the postal services situation where this new legislation was required. I had been talking in particular about the genuine fear felt by very many workers in the postal services about the impending changes. I was finishing on a point which took me very close to all of this, that if we in this House cannot see the reasons for this resistance to change, then we are not opening our own eyes very much. I was making the point that we have given a very bad example to others outside when we advocate that people should be ready to rationalise, to change, to up-date their structures, to prepare to fit into the new demands of a different type of environment and society. So I hope that when the handling of staff relations and the redeployment of people is taking place with the new boards that there will be a great degree of sensitivity on the part of the new management, that the new management will not think that it can indulge in whiz-kid, ruthless type managerial styles which many of the workers already suspect will be the case. I hope this will not be so and that there will be a sensitivity which has not always been present in the past on these types of operations, because if the management of the new companies decide that they are going to move in, that they are going to sweep clean with a new broom and brush away all of the existing attitudes and practices, they will be making a great mistake. Within the existing postal services there is a great residue of experience and talent and commitment by people who are genuinely committed to operating and making the service work, and it is very important that the new management, whoever it is, will respect this and move with sensitivity and with open mindedness and will understand the fears of very many people in face of the biggest change they will ever encounter in their working lives.
Therefore, the first task for the new management in the new companies will undoubtedly be to create a sense of confidence, a sense that they are there to work with those working there in a co-operative joint way in the interests of all rather than coming in to "take the sorry state of things entire, and shattering it mould it nearer the heart's desire". But by the same token a very heavy responsibility lies with the unions and management, and I am not here tonight to preach because that is not my function here. But if management shows itself capable of understanding the fears and capable of being imaginative in the way in which it accommodates itself to those genuine fears and possible misunderstandings, then too there is also a greater responsibility on the unions in the new companies, and I know that many unions are unhappy about the whole principle of what is being done. But I believe that the companies will be set up and that that is the majority view in this House. I do not want to pre-judge the votes and there may be changes before the legislation goes through, but if and when the boards are set up I hope that the unions will keep their minds open and come into the discussions on redeployment and staff structures and so on with open, uncluttered and unprejudiced minds. There is no doubt that the management will find there a great well of expertise and experience upon which to build, and I hope that on both sides there will be give and take. This is the greatest task facing management. If it cannot create the ambience, the conditions in which there is a sense of trust, then the bad start could very well mean that the enterprises will never really get off the ground.
But to the workers in the new boards there is no way in which there will not be disruption, or inconvenience, perhaps a certain sense in which people will feel dislocated. Given the nature of the changes, this will have to be the case. If there is not a certain amount of disruption, if there is not a certain amount of dislocation, then we may well find the entire venture has been in vain; it will simply be a case of painting the pillar boxes green all over again.
One of the things which those who are the strongest advocates of public enterprise involvement here must prove in these new ventures is that public enterprise of this sort has the imagination and the ability to innovate and to move into new business areas, new money making areas. This is something which the new companies will have to prove. There is no doubt whatsoever that in this country in recent years there has been a very strong swing away from the whole concept of State industry. In the past many people were prepared to accept State industry on the grounds that it was necessary and that nobody else would do it or that the losses were very great. But in recent years the enormous losses incurred by many of our State bodies for reasons which it is not appropriate to go into here tonight — and there is no single reason — coupled with a declined standard of service in many of them has led many people, not just doctrinaire Thatcherites but ordinary business people and ordinary people in the country, to the belief that it is better at this stage that private enterprise be given a chance, that there are many areas which could best be turned over to private enterprise rather than have the enormous losses which the State, and ultimately the taxpayers, have to carry. So it is in this context that the boards are being set up, where those new boards must be able to prove they have the skills, the expertise and the ability to find new areas of work, new areas of activity, to go out and find new markets, to exploit the existing services to the full. There is no doubt that the Post Office, with its enormous number of main street or prime outlets should be in a position to find new ways, new enterprises by which it could at least lower losses or ensure a much greater flow of money into the service. It must show that it is willing to learn, to fight for the justification of the principle of State involvement in its particular area.
Here again I am back to the important and delicate point of the role the unions will play in all of this. The unions have been utterly responsible to date. They have behaved impeccably in all of the negotiations up to this point and I am sure they will do so afterwards. But if over the next couple of years, the formative years of these new boards, certain unions are going to use every innovation, every deviation from accepted practice as a means of making a new wage claim, if a Luddite mentality is going to block new technology, we may well find that the new service instead of prospering will begin almost with self-inflicted wounds, will begin with a built-in certainty of suicide. If it is to survive and prosper, then losses must be kept within manageable proportions. This country will not tolerate another NET. It will not tolerate another loss-making operation on the scale of CIE. That is something which at this stage public attitudes have turned themselves against. Nobody in this House wants to begin the life of these new boards on these grounds. So while obviously we support the principle that there must be this degree of flexibility at the early stages, and especially in the two or three formative years then the new service is beginning, I hope that flexibility will be the keyword, that unions will control their extremists, those who are trying to use every possible change as a means of putting in an extra claim. I am not saying for one moment that people should not be paid more for doing more work or for greater productivity, especially if their efforts have contributed to that productivity. But to expect more simply because working conditions are different — one is working two miles or five miles down the road or because enhanced technology has meant that for less effort there is greater productivity — could cripple the new board at the very beginning. The early years will be the formative ones.
I would like to deal now with the public image of the two boards. The telephone service has a particularly bad image. This is in part due to a misunderstanding of the problems and conditions under which those people work and in part about the problems people had in getting telephones, and that situation is being improved almost by the month thanks to the efforts of the last two Ministers. Nevertheless, a major rehabilitation public relations job is necessary for the new boards.
There is one small area which is causing increasing concern, that is, the absence of any form of verification of telephone bills. I know many people, myself included, are shocked when they see the amount of their telephone bills. People who have kept detailed accounts find the amount they think they should be paying is far less than the amount of the bill, and unless the amount is outrageous because of a computer error — thousands of pounds — it is almost impossible to get proper verification. When a complaint is made, the Department say they have checked their records and a certain amount is owed. There is a need for some sort of appeal against what seem to be unreasonable telephone demands. I am sure other Deputies have this type of problem and it is undermining confidence, to a small extent, in the operation of the telephone service. I do not know how this problem could be resolved, but like many others I have a lack of confidence in the veracity of computer-based systems. They can make mistakes. The principle seems to be that the computer cannot be wrong. I doubt if the Minister has an answer to this, but I ask him to look at this area.
Deputy Kelly and Deputy Gallagher referred to the private couriers. I find myself disagreeing in principle with Deputy Gallagher, but agreeing with him in practice. I would like to see provision made for private couriers because they provide a very important service and I would like to see the new board competing with them. If this happens there will have to be some sort of statutory supervision of the conditions under which the courier service is carried out. The same applies to the fast delivery service.
If I may summarise. We all agree there is need for drastic action in this area. I am not in agreement with my colleague, Deputy Kelly — and not for the first time — when he said the legislation seemed to be based almost exclusively on British legislation. I do not believe this is the case. The review body did a very thorough job. They examined similar services around the world, looking especially at countries where there was some basis for comparison. I believe the Minister is right to base legislation largely on the findings of the review body, and in this legislation there are elements borrowed from other countries. It is right that we should be open-minded in this way and I gently reprimand Deputy Kelly — I am sure he does not care one way or the other — for harping almost exclusively on the aspect of legislation derived from the British experience. I believe the review body looked further. I am not going to look at the faults in the service because others have done that.
I believe this Bill will work. If there can be a sufficient degree of flexibility, if the financial structure, about which Deputy Cooney spoke so much, can be resolved satisfactorily, and if proper commercial criteria can be established between management and unions, then I believe these new boards will work. I hope they will be brought under the purview of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. The principle of accountability to Parliament over this wide area is one we would be very loathe to give up. If these bodies are made accountable to that joint committee there will be some element — a growing element, I hope — of Oireachtas surveillance.
I welcome this Bill which, with a few small changes, will meet the needs of this country at a time of great change and I wish the Minister every success with it.
As my fellow members of the Labour Party have already outlined our objections and position regarding this legislation, I would like to lend my voice in support of them. For many reasons we are opposed to the changes outlined in this Bill. What we are seeing is the result of an inquiry which has not been sufficiently gone into. The present postal and telecommunications services can be criticised, and nobody can deny that.
A lot of time, hard work, and sweat have gone into the developing of these services, and they are coming to fruition on the telecommunications side. For many years there was a lack of finance and adequate infrastructure in the provision of these services but we have come to the stage where we can say we will soon have a service to meet the demands of what we would like to consider a growing economy. This is a very important time in relation to the provision of these services, particularly for the people who have provided them through the years, because we are now taking these services from them. What I particularly dislike is that we appear to be shedding responsibility for providing these two very essential services which affect every aspect of our community — the man in the street, the small businessman, multinationals, foreign developers and so on. The initial questions to be asked in regard to the infrastructure for industry will always be the efficiency of our postal and communications services. It is obvious that we must have certain criteria by which to judge the services provided. We have to have efficiency at reasonable cost and we must ensure we are serving the whole community. It is equally important that we have unity of service throughout the country. We must ask the question if these objectives are being achieved under the present structure or if they will be achieved under the proposed structure as outlined in this legislation.
The timing of the division of the services is unfortunate. There will be more need in the future to ensure that both of the services will be provided through a unified body. Because of scientific and technological advancement, postal and telecommunications services will have greater reasons to be linked in the future. With regard to the provision of postal services, my objections to the proposed legislation might not be as strong if I were representing an urban constituency. I see no difficulty for the future in relation to the provision of a very efficient postal and delivery service in urban areas. However, there have been some dangerous precedents in relation to the provision of services in rural Ireland where there has to be a social content. After building up and providing an infrastructure for transport services throughout the country, today we have a mere shadow of the services when one considers the limited amount of railway lines now functioning.
History can be its own judge with regard to this Bill. I am not convinced that in the years to come we will maintain a high level of postal service to rural Ireland. There will be no difficulty whatever in farming out contracts and courier services to areas having a high density of population, but I cannot see too many people knocking on the door of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or on the door of An Bord Poist to cater for services to people in rural Ireland who enjoy today a good service on a daily basis.
People living in remote parts of the country are entitled to the same kind of service as those living in urban areas. History will be its own judge, but no Government can consider themselves to be a caring and responsive Government to the needs of the people in rural Ireland if they impose a service that will not maintain the same standards we have today. While it may not become apparent in the immediate future, I believe it is the beginning of the end for the postal service in the remote parts of the country and in areas not so remote. Politicians, and particularly those of us representing people from outside the urban communities, must consider it our priority to maintain and, if possible, to improve the service enjoyed by people today. I am open to be convinced that this service will exist in five, ten or 15 years time. The Minister may have a lot to answer for in regard to this legislation.
We can accept the principle of modernisation. We have to make advances and go along with changing times, but I question the necessity for this legislation. Do we need to change the service so completely under the guise of modernisation? In the past we failed to finance both the telecommunications and postal sections and we allowed them to become run down. Now we are proposing a massive injection but we are not happy to do so within the present framework. I do not see any reason why we could not improve the services — I accept that there are areas where improvements can be made — within the existing structures.
It is regrettable we did not see fit to expand the services provided within the functional area of posts and telegraphs. It is an area where we could learn from the example of other countries. There are many ideas we could use in the provision of our services. We have tended to allow the Post Office generally to adopt a stereotype role in the provision of facilities and services. As part of the effort to have an efficient service and one that can deal with the pressures of modern competitiveness and business attitudes, I do not know why we do not give a far greater role to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In this connection I mention the provision of banking services, which would be ideal for this Department. It would be a healthy aspect of competition in relation to banking if Post Office savings were given a stronger footing and a higher profile in current banking services. While this legislation appears for the moment to allow many of the counter services provided by the Post Office to be continued, there are no guarantees for the future. This is just one of the grey areas in this legislation. I would be far happier if we were told in detail if those services will continue or if they will be discontinued either at an early or a later date.
In the Green Paper and the White Paper leading to the proposed legislation there was much patronising and loosely-worded phrases and sentences in relation to the good relations that should be maintained with the present staff and workers in both sections of the Department. Unfortunately, I do not share the Minister's conviction that this changeover can take place smoothly in the present circumstances. We should iron out all problems in relation to the service conditions existing staff enjoy. Until that is done we should not take this legislation one step further. Too often legislation is passed here and then the problems crop up. These matters should be sorted out now rather than after the attempted implementation of the legislation. We will have problems.
I suggest that insufficient negotiations have taken place and have not reached satisfactory conclusion. Too many questions need to be answered and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with negotiations and the fact that conclusions have not been reached. We have not heard about the number of redundancies expected or the proposals for maintaining existing numbers. Yet, in dividing the services are we not creating another bureaucracy to carry out duties which are being carried out in a proper manner by one Department? All Members should be aware of the surveys that have been carried out in regard to efficiency, manning of services and the bureaucracy involved in carrying out various functions. It is my belief that in spite of all the evidence that has been produced we are top heavy in management, that for every three or four workers we have one person to supervise them. We are now setting up a whole new complex of bureaucracy. This division will not improve the service directly and we should be putting the existing management structure to greater use than we are doing at present. My concern is in regard to the lack of proposals in regard to the proper and efficient usage of existing management in the Department. It is only realistic that we should accept that the existing staff have acquired an expertise and knowledge of the workings of both sections of the Department and these must be utilised in the new proposals.
I should like to raise some questions about the appointment of worker directors. I am aware that earlier today the Minister disagreed with Deputy Moynihan in regard to this matter. My reading of the legislation leads me to agree with Deputy Moynihan. To allow 12 months to expire before appointing worker directors is too open-ended. It is of great importance that such directors are appointed prior to the introduction of the new services. Many growing pains will be avoided if worker directors are involved in day-to-day policy making from the start. Any delay in the appointment of such directors may prove detrimental, especially in regard to getting the support and co-operation of workers. I urge the Minister to seek the appointment of worker directors as soon as possible. Such a move would be in the interest of the new board.
One area of staffing that causes me concern is in regard to night telephonists. I should like to know what the future has in store for such people. I am sure the Minister, and the Minister of State, are aware of the grave fears that have been expressed by those people. The statistics and surveys issued to date do not hold out any great hope for them. Any politician concerned about keeping unemployment figures down must be concerned at the proposal to reduce the number of night telephonists by thousands. It is only right that we should express concern when we do not know what is in store for those people. The Minister should tell the House the plans, if any, the whiz kid bosses of the boards have for the staff that inevitably will not be kept on following the modernisation of these services.
I am not objecting to modernisation or progress which must be made in regard to those services but there is a genuine need to allay the fears and hard-fastened convictions of the night telephonists that within a short time they will be made redundant. The research that has been carried out by them and others indicates that there will be savage cuts in job numbers. Those people would welcome any indication from the Minister as to what the future holds for them. At their annual conference recently those people spoke of a conspiracy of silence by the administrators of the new board. There is room for a public relations exercise in regard to this matter. In fact, it should go a stage further and representatives of these people should have the proposed changes explained to them. I hope job losses are kept to a minimum and, if possible, avoided. There is little justification at a time of recession for failing to maintain a balance between progress or development and employment.
The proposed legislation, in allowing a general policy in regard to the provision of licences to persons considered suitable by the new boards, is an undesirable direction for the Government to be taking. The powers should be retained by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because he is responsible to the Members of this House and there is a very important part of democracy at risk in relation to these changes. I would be far happier in the knowledge that we, as public representatives, could still maintain the role of watchdog in relation to the provision of its services which are so vital and important in the every day lives of laymen and business people.
I am not happy that this policy of distribution of licences and allowing the companies to regulate their distribution bodes well in terms of democracy. We are shedding another important aspect of answerability and accountability from this institution and I do not welcome that move.
In relation to the setting up of companies rather than corporations, despite the suggestion in the White Paper that both would be considered, I feel that there is far more responsibility and accountability and I would be far happier if we were to give a direction that the new bodies would be corporations rather than companies as such. I do not think there has been sufficient public discussion or consultation with the bodies concerned with the changes and, until such discussions and consultations have taken place, this legislation is premature. I am convinced, at a time when we need to cultivate our image as a country with solid industrial relations, with a progressive work force and a suitable infrastructure for development as an industrial nation, that we are precipitating possible industrial chaos, especially in the areas of telecommunications and postal enterprises.
I urge the Minister to tread with caution in relation to the implementation of this legislation. I agree with the suggestions in the proposed legislation that a watchdog and consumer protection body has to be provided for but I wonder at the wisdom of providing for this body to be paid from financial provisions made by the Minister. This will, no doubt, reflect itself in the cost and charges to be levied by the provision of the services. We have reason to be concerned about the consultative process outlined in the Bill in relation to pay and conditions of service for the existing work force in both areas of the Department. There are no guarantees and, for the many people who have served this Department so well, guarantees should be outlined. They are entitled to guarantees in black and white. There is too much uncertainty and it must be removed prior to the implementation of this legislation. We are all aware of the feelings that have been vented and the discussions that have taken place recently at annual conferences and in private discussions with members of the union. We are all aware that they are not 100 per cent in agreement with the proposals. Until we have the 100 per cent agreement of these people, who are so vital in the provision of these services, we are on very dangerous ground. The last thing we want at this point in the development of these services is industrial strife. The Minister is a man of vision and he must be aware of the dangers that are in this proposed legislation. I urge him to hold further consultations and to go to any lengths to provide for the smooth change over which is inevitable at this stage. It must be a smooth change over if we are to maintain progress and to have the efficient service which the legislation sets out to provide.
I have outlined the reservations which I and the Labour Party steadfastly hold in relation to these changes. There is very little attraction for the kind of company which I feel will be interested in providing the services to small communities in towns and villages. There certainly will not be a profit margin for them. The attraction will be manifold in urban areas with large communities and there will be a large profitability in relation to the provision of services there. Who is going to be responsible for the provision of the non-profit making services, which are enjoyed throughout the country at present? The Minister and the Minister of State representing rural constituencies, as I do, may have to answer for this proposed legislation. No doubt by that time the Minister of State will have plenty of telephones installed in Roscommon but I feel that people will be looking for more. They will want the maintenance of the services which they have rightly come to expect.
I urge the Minister and his Minister of State to look at this legislation themselves and let us have some personal input from the Minister to this legislation. We in the Labour Party will show cause why it should not pass in its present form: I refer to amendments we intend putting down. At this point in the development of our telecommunication and postal enterprises I feel the time is not right for this change. Particularly in regard to telecommunications, why at this point of development should we propose to hand over these services to a State-sponsored body? Why bring in people from private enterprise at a stage when provision of telecommunication services seems to be going well? Like every other Deputy, I have frequently sought to expedite the installation of a telephone service. Throughout the country everybody is familiar with that problem. But since 1979 we have made great progress in the undating of the service and it has almost arrived at the point where we can be satisfied that service can be provided on demand. That is the target I assume we are striving for. Is that situation now being changed from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the State-sponsored body? I should be happier if at this stage, when much work has been put into it and many hours devoted to updating our service and bringing it to a modern acceptable standard, to allow the people who have brought it to this stage to continue to supervise its development.
I urge the Minister, in his wisdom, to take a long, slow, deliberate look at the proposed legislation. On another Stage we shall outline in detail our objections, section by section, in the form of amendments. When the specific arguments are highlighted it will seem that there are many areas of weakness and uncertainty and areas where the Bill will not be an improvement on the existing structure. I feel these should be rejected, and I believe that time will bear us out.
I am not replying to the debate but I should like to get a word in of explanation.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has indicated to the Chair that he deems it necessary to give a short explanation to the House. Subject to the agreement of the House, the Chair proposes to give him the opportunity to make that explanation. Is the House agreed?
Deputies:
Agreed.
To what does it relate?
Acting Chairman:
It is in relation to a matter that is urgent and in the opinion of the Minister should be explained. It relates to a statement made earlier today by Deputy Mitchell which the Minister feels should be clarified as quickly as possible.
In the course of the debate on the Bill this afternoon Deputy J. Mitchell referred to the facility on some telephones connected to the PABX serving this House of listening in to other telephone calls made on the PABX. In case there should be any misunderstanding arising from what Deputy Mitchell said, I wish to give this explanation and clarify the matter.
The Leinster House exchange is a very modern computer-controlled private automatic branch exchange. Most of the telephones connected to it are of the ordinary type but also connected to it are 20 push button console sets or SL1s. The exchange computer can be programmed to give these SL1 sets an override facility which enables the user to interrupt a call to or from extensions connected to the Leinster House exchange. A warning tone is sounded when such interruption takes place. Seventeen of the SL1s have been given the override facility — seven in the Taoiseach's offices in Government Buildings and Leinster House; eight in the Minister for Finance's office in Government Buildings and two in the office of the then Leader of the Opposition in Leinster House. The two former installations dated from 1980 and the latter from July 1981.
This override facility is a feature of most electronic branch exchanges. As the Taoiseach was mentioned as having asked for the SL1 consoles, I have consulted with him in the matter and he asked me to state categorically that (i) he never asked for the override facility which enables other calls to be listened in to and that this is confirmed by the departmental official who attended the meeting at which the Taoiseach stated his requirement; (ii) that he never knew such a facility was available on the SL1 set and that he never used it. The SL1 sets, exactly as they were, were left for Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald when he took over as Taoiseach. I find it very consoling for us lesser beings that two Taoisigh could have facilities on their desks which they did not know anything about — good for us. The Taoiseach first became aware of this facility when it was mentioned to him earlier this year by Deputy Garrett FitzGerald.
As Deputy Mitchell said, the matter was brought to the notice of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. The override facility was removed from all SL1 sets and all extensions connected to the Leinster House PABX were made immune from intrusion by an override facility. The present position is that any changes in the Leinster House PABX can be made in future only with the prior agreement of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad.
Deputy Mitchell raised the question of referring to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the circumstances in which these facilities came to be provided. I am going to insist that this shall be done without delay. I want all the documentation and all the reports to be made available to the committee for a thorough full, exhaustive investigation and report free from all innuendo.
I should like to welcome the Bill, which implements the White Paper on the reorganisation of postals and telecommunications services and provides for the establishment of two State-sponsored companies, An Poist and Bord Telecom Éireann. Most people will welcome the Bill. My only worry is that there will be greater expectation of results from it than are likely to come about quickly. I believe that one of the biggest issues under the Bill has been mentioned by the two previous speakers. I have not heard the debate so far today on the Second Stage but I agree with my party colleague, Deputy Manning, in his views about the need to consult with, understand and recognise the viewpoint of employees involved. I have no doubt but that the Minister, keeping in mind the last speaker's comments, will be in consultation and will understand the very real fears that workers and Post Office officials in this area feel at this time. It is very important when a radical change such as this comes about that the workers are reassured. In these days when unemployment is high and sky-rocketing every day they are entitled to an assurance that their jobs, job structures and opportunities for the future will not change drastically with the introduction of this legislation and the coming into being of these two companies. This has been an important feature of the debate so far and of the concern felt by the workers which they have conveyed to all of us Deputies.
I cannot agree with the last speaker who talked about dramatic changes being imminent and things looking good for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We all know the situation regarding telephones. The Order Paper every day is full of questions about the service and during the last two elections when we went out to seek votes we found that all over the country the telephones posed probably the greatest problem and issue we faced. In my constituency one candidate — not of my party, let me say — was the target of a telephone which somebody threw because the phone has been installed in a house and had not been connected although the fee had been paid. We cannot cover up any longer for the dreadful infrastructure we have. Public representatives are receiving letters from the Department similar to the following in reply to an application for service for a constituent: "The need for service is appreciated. Installation of telephones in the Dublin area is being greatly speeded up. It is planned to provide over 40,000 telephones in the area this year and practically all outstanding applications will be met before the end of 1983." It goes on to say that this will involve underground cabling, and the mind conjures up all kinds of routing in the ground, digging and so on. That is one of the standard letters to which I referred previously. It tells a fairy tale. There will not be 40,000 telephones in the area, at least I do not believe so because I have had no basis on which I can feel optimism in this regard.
I would like to comment on Deputy Spring's reference to his fears for the postal service in the country areas after this legislation is enacted. Perhaps he does not know that recently I asked about a small parcel which was posted in a Dublin post office and I was told that it would take three days to reach Galway. Inevitably this is forcing people to use the express postal service, which is very expensive and which, if the system was working, would not be necessary. Two weeks ago a letter I posted in Ballsbridge post office took five days to get to Herbert Park. Public relations, promises and so on are no good. This action is necessary and welcomed and it is bound to effect changes which unfortunately, will not be quick changes.
Turning to more mundane matters, I would like to talk about my hopes in regard to the new companies and their appliances, facilities and services. Has the Minister responsible observed the system of automatic public telephones which have appeared recently in Dublin? I am not sure whether this system has extended beyond Dublin. They are called pay-phones, and I am still looking in Dublin for free phones. These new appliances are absolutely appalling. Many people who are not stupid cannot operate them and one can lose quite an amount of money trying to operate them. I wonder why this system was adopted here when in so many other European countries such as France, Spain and the UK a system has been introduced which is very easy to work and apparently efficient, and also vandal-proof because the phones are in public places and stations where they are bound to be subject to vandalism. Where in the name of goodness did the Minister responsible go to buy the phones we have now? I suspect that they will be found to function so badly that they will have to be replaced at enormous public cost.
Our telephone system is desperately retarded, but people will become used to anything and eventually will not realise the awful conditions under which we are working here. Our telephone boxes outside Dublin are museum pieces. One that I went into recently had a notice which said that only Irish 3d pieces were to be used in this box. That will indicate how long the notice has been there or how long it was since the box was serviced. I hope that soon the facilities will reflect the eighties rather than some early postwar period. Those of us who travel abroad see the facilities available there in the homes, shopping centres, big stores and the streets, where efficient, clean, functioning telephones are taken for granted. In the smallest village in France, in the Canaries, anywhere I have been in the developed and sometimes in the not too developed world can be found telephone systems that work very well and are far superior to ours. I question why our system is so retarded when ten years ago EEC membership was very much on the cards. Why did we not have the vision and planning that other countries had in regard to telephone systems? Investors come in here look at our telephone system and run away again.
In this context I must mention the facilities available at the GPO in Dublin. I have not been there recently, but the last time I went in it was an utter disgrace. Has the Minister ever tried to make a phone call at the GPO? It is certain that visitors to the country will go there to make phone calls and Dublin people also probably must go there, because very few phones in the telephone boxes anywhere else are working. The facilities in the GPO are appalling. They are dirty, in several of the boxes the phones are broken and it can be taken for granted that the telephone directories are out of date or torn. The system for international phone calls as compared with those in any other comparable city are very bad.
We have let the postal service lag dreadfully. Sub-post offices here were set up to cater for people who wanted to buy stamps or collect their old age pensions. Now they deal with services comparable with those provided by banks, but they have not the facilities to do so. On, say, children's allowance day queues of people stretch out to the street. The Post Office services have been expanded to take in the payment of telephone bills, children's allowances, deserted wife's allowance, old age pensions, other social welfare payments, savings certificates, social welfare forms and TV licences. I am not suggesting that the people operating these sub-post offices or suburban post offices are inefficient are not doing their job, but they are working under impossible odds. Consumers in this country are passive. Sometimes I go in for some service and I have not the time to wait. I do not have time to wait and cannot stand for an hour to get service nor should I have to. People pay enough for stamps and the other services they get at post offices and should have an efficient service.
I am glad that we will have a users council. This will be an important feature of the Bill. I would ask the Minister to ensure that it is a meaningful council. There is no point in setting up more bureaucracy and having a situation where TDs will have to write or make representations to this council on behalf of consumers to see that they get a fair deal. I hope it will be accessible to consumers and that they will be able to bring their complaints and problems to it themselves. There is no point in having a white elephant or a window-dressing operation. I am all in favour of people being able to go to a Department and make a complaint themselves. I hope we are not encouraging a greater dependency on TDs. People should have access to the council and be able to use it themselves.
I welcome the Bill. Like previous speakers, I ask that the needs and expectations of the officials concerned be taken into account and that they be fully consulted in good time.
I support my party spokesman in opposing this Bill at Second Stage. I agree there are many welcome aspects in the Bill but it is premature and ill-advised because due recognition of the rights and needs of the workers involved have not been given and a final and happy conclusion to the consultations has not been achieved. It is my contention that this is the first stage in the hiving off of profitable sections of the public sector and dismantling all non-viable areas assessed purely on an economic basis rather than on their social content.
Prior to being elected to this House, I was a member of the public sector and served in a State body for over 20 years. For many years, irrespective of what Government were in power, there was a complete lack of interest and lack of policy at Government level and because of that there was a lack of investment to ensure that a service to which the public were entitled was forthcoming. Arising from the lack of interest of successive Governments, there has been criticism of the staff rather than of the service over the years. The blame was laid on the wrong shoulders. Staff have always given of their best. The lack of interest should be shouldered by people in the higher places in the many Governments we had during the last 25 years.
There are 28,000 people employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and many of these have served for 35 and 40 years in conditions which I should not like to describe in 1982. As regards working conditions, pensions, recognition of service and so on, there has been serious discontent and disquiet expressed by the unions representing these people over the years. The staff involved are entitled to full and co-operative consultation. As regards this Bill the unions concerned have expressed their dismay and alarm at the fact that consultations have not been resolved and conclusions have not been reached. There are up to 300 cases unresolved in the Department.
As a rural Deputy, I am concerned that prime consideration has not been given to the social aspect of the service involved. One might describe it as an extension of the urban development Bill because if one examines the Bill one will see that a first-class service is provided in Dublin city and in the east of Ireland but I can see, in many areas in my constituency, where in the future people will be fortunate to receive a postal delivery once every three weeks. The thinking behind the Bill and the input from some private enterprise people is based solely on the profitable aspect of the workings of the Department. One can only relate the implications of this Bill to what has happened in another State body, CIE, where over the years there has been an erosion of service due to lack of interest and lack of investment by successive Governments. As the result of this indifference, many people in various parts of the country do not enjoy the benefits of a service which are first class in other areas. They are first class because the number of people utilising the service makes for a greater profit margin.
I am concerned for the staff involved. They have given a tremendous service over the years. The prospect facing 3,000 to 4,000 people is one of job loss. I am all for development and progress but not at a time when we have nearly 150,000 people unemployed. I cannot condone a situation where 4,000 people could lose their job. We have had many outcries when major enterprises closed down in the last few months. In this situation there is the prospect of substantial job losses. That is why I contend that the right to consultation should be uppermost in the minds of all concerned.
There are other aspects of the Bill with particular reference to the worker about which I would also be concerned. For example, there is the question of promotion. Prior to the introduction of this Bill an officer in this Department had the right, with proven ability, to move into other sectors on promotion. But the provisions of this Bill will impose restrictions on a man or woman's ability to improve his or her lot in life, which means that staff will no longer be able to avail of opportunities arising outside their specific area of employment. Also in my opinion under the provisions of the Bill worker participation will amount to a very belated effort. The Bill says that 12 months later workers may participate in policy decisions.
On a point of information, a lot of Deputies have made that mistake. That is not so. It has to be done within the 12 months; it could be done the week after the vesting.
I thank the Minister for clarifying that point for me. In other words it will be working in tandem with developments——
Yes, it could be the following week.
For the sake of industrial peace in the public sector and a successful implementation of the provisions of the Bill there is urgent need for further discussion with the unions concerned. These unions have indicated publicly that they are not happy with the type of consultation that has taken place with particular reference to this Bill. It would indeed be a sad day for any Government in power if such a revolutionary development was introduced without the goodwill of the staff concerned. We have learned from experience in regard to many incidents over the years that, without the goodwill of the workers involved in any new development or introduction of new technology, one will not be successful in reaching one's goal. There is need for further consultation. Therefore at this stage I appeal to the Minister to accept the offer of the unions concerned, before proceeding to Committee Stage, to ensure that there be constructive consultation with the unions concerned. Apart from this development there are some 300 cases for arbitration in regard to status within that area of the public sector that remain unresolved, many for a considerable length of time. If we are to embark with the goodwill and co-operation of the unions and staff concerned there is need for further discussion. It must be said that any man or woman in fear of losing a job cannot be happy about new developments — apart from their being for the good of the country and its people in his or her area of employment. We must be able to say to such people that their service of perhaps 30 years has been appreciated and now we are saying: "This new development will be of help to you in your job and will create a new era of industrial peace; let us go along the road of further development in the postal and telecommunications service." That is what we should be doing rather than saying: "We have had sufficient consultation, let us get on with the job and have this Bill passed in the House." For the sake of industrial peace in this sector I appeal to the Minister to listen to the unions' plea for further consultation and negotiation so that the Bill may be passed with the co-operation of the staff of the Department.
The provisions of the Bill indicate clearly that its social aspect takes third or fourth place only in the order of priorities. That to me foretells a dismantling of those services in rural Ireland over the next four or five years. Representing a rural constituency I would be most concerned in this respect. I contend that better service can be provided only with the greater usage of the facilities available within the Department, and that in the major centres of population. Here profit is the motive rather than any social one. I protest, on behalf of rural Ireland, that this development will augur the end of many of the services in poorly populated areas. We have been giving lip service here and elsewhere for many years to rural renewal. What has happened over the years? Services have been withdrawn in different Departments. Small schools, Garda barracks, railway stations and so on have been closed and now we are confronted with a situation in which even small post offices may be closed.
Another important aspect of this Bill to be borne in mind is that it will have considerable influence on the development of the services in the future because of insufficient capital being made available to the new boards, particularly that in relation to the postal services. Anybody travelling around the country cannot but observe the condition of many of our post offices. Many of them are derelict buildings in which people are asked to work, many of which should have been condemned long ago. Surely if this new revolutionary idea is to get off the ground modern buildings must be provided for the people who will be providing the service. It must be remembered that many such buildings date back to the middle of the last century. There is also a substantial amount of money required for plant renewal. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there has been a sufficient allocation of capital to ensure that in the five or ten years ahead moneys will be readily available for the provision of proper, modern facilities for the staff who will be providing these services, backed up by modern plant.
Indeed we have suffered from the lack of Government policy in such areas as the postal service for many years. Now when, in the last ten years, some moneys have been provided for one section of the Department for postal services, that is now going to be handed over to private enterprise. Having invested taxpayers' money for the provision of better telecommunications services — and here credit must be given to the various office holders over the last ten years for their concern in this respect — we are now prepared to hand over the running of that section to private enterprise. In that area only will private enterprise participate because that is where there is money to be made.
Debate adjourned.