I was asking last night about the reason for having 12 members on these boards.
Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, 1982: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 32.
In page 14, subsection (2) (a), line 45, to delete "7" and substitute "12".
—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs)
The two boards will be a very important part of the new organisation. I am anxious that the final composition of the boards will be organised as soon as possible—I have an amendment in this respect which we will come to later. I appeal to the Minister that when he is selecting the members of the two boards he will reappoint the members of the interim boards. It is only right and proper that those members who have worked so hard on the interim boards would be reappointed, because then the boards would have the benefit of their experience.
On An Bord Telecom there will be five selected members and seven appointed members. It would be appropriate that one of the unions would have at least one representative. According to our legislation the POWU would not be given permission to elect a representative on the board. About 5,000 telephonists will be transferred from the Department to An Bord Telecom but they would not have representatives on the board to look after their interests. Therefore I suggest there should be an amendment to allow at least one representative of the POWU to be a director on the board. I would appreciate it if the Minister would confirm for me whether there is a member of the POWU on the interim board.
Fianna Fáil did not put on a member.
I will explain the situation. There may be some confusion here because we have the temporary board, an interim board and eventually the statutory board. On An Bord Telecom there is a representative of the IPOEU and Mr. O'Sullivan of the Local Government and Public Services Union. In the case of An Bord Poist there is a representative of the POWU, Mr. Quinlan, General Secretary, and Mr. Cardiff of the FWUI. It is my intention to reappoint these people on the interim board and to add two further trade union representatives. Pending the election of the statutory board there will be four working directors in the case of An Bord Telecom and five working directors in the case of An Bord Poist.
The Minister will probably agree that the present chairman of An Bord Poist, Mr. Quinn, and the chairman of An Bord Telecom, Mr. Smurfit, have both given very distinguished service.
Yes.
At the time of their appointment the then Minister, Deputy Faulkner, selected the best people available.
It would be as well not to discuss individuals in the House. I know the Deputy is paying them compliments but——
Those who praise may criticise. I would like to be associated with Deputy Leyden's remarks because they are worth putting on the record.
I was seeking a minimum number, but the Minister has gone even further and I am very happy to accept his amendment. There is no disagreement on this matter.
I know the work that has been done by the interim boards, who have been operating without any powers over the past few years. It is very frustrating for a board to operate without any statutory power. Mr. Garvey, the Chief Executive of An Bord Poist, and Mr. Byrne of An Bord Telecom, have been studying the system in great detail. Both will be appointed under this Bill because they have gained great experience and have built up a very good relationship with the executives and chief executives of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not want to labour the point but we are both on the same wavelength in this matter——
There are no pirates in this case.
For continuity of leadership there is a case to be made for the reappointment to this statutory board, which I hope will be set up in six months — and not later than 12 months — of the chairmen and people who served with distinction on the two boards. They will ensure that these companies will be steered steadily through the troubled waters ahead.
Both boards have extremely capable people working on them. Irrespective of what Deputy O'Sullivan said, we had a good representative of the trade union movement on An Bord Telecom. I believe the POWU should have at least one representative on An Bord Telecom, who will represent 5,000 telephonists who will be going through a very difficult period in the next few years and who will require a voice on the board. On behalf of these telephonists I appeal to the Minister to invite a representative of their union on the interim board to allow a representative of that union to be appointed also to the permanent board. I hold no brief for anybody. But I received detailed representations from all the unions involved and I am impressed by the service they are providing for their members. I believe they should be given adequate representation.
We are increasing the number of directors from seven to 12 but my honest opinion is that seven is enough. The people appointed to these boards will have to be paid a salary to be decided by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance. My greatest fear is that we are building another bureaucracy. The fewer people there are at the top of any organisation the better chance there is that it will have a solid foundation. Here we have the opportunity of setting up this board and we should be trying to keep costs down. It is an unnecessary and undesirable move to increase the number of directors from seven to 12.
If we proceed along these lines we will be setting an example which may be followed right down the line. People will be appointed throughout the country but what we want is an efficient service and we should give an example by keeping the board of directors small. This would be more economical and more efficient because the bigger the board the more secretarial and managerial staff will be necessary to service it. The board should be a tight-knit, efficient unit, and expanding it further will not add to its efficiency or help to improve the service.
Why is it necessary to increase the number on the board? There appears to be agreement on this point and maybe I am a lone voice, but in my view we should be setting an example. If we increase the number of directors somebody will have to pay. Not enough attention has been given to the paying public, the people who will receive this service. We should be trying to help these people because to date they have been given a service which has been very unsatisfactory. Because the service was so unsatisfactory everybody was happy to move into an area where we would set up boards. The interests of the paying public, the people who are receiving this service, must be taken into account. If we build up a huge bureaucracy, the danger is that the paying public will not get the service to which they are entitled. This could be the start of something, and we should have a further look at it.
I welcome the Minister's amendment. Deputy Mac Giolla and I put down a similar amendment. Basically it is the amendment the Post Office Worker's Union were anxious to have included in the Bill. The amendment attempts to ensure that there is adequate provision to enable a sufficient number of worker directors to be elected to the board. For that reason the numbers have had to be expanded.
I do not believe that an additional five directors is a huge increase in a bureaucratic structure. I am not at all that taken with the idea that in itself bureaucracy is a bad thing. This House could not function without a bureaucratic structure. We would not have our Order Papers or any of the various services on which this House survives without a bureaucratic structure. I am not all that taken with the idea of condemning bureaucracy. It can go too far, but I do not believe increasing the number of directors from seven to 12 is a move in that direction.
The Minister has power to appoint directors to the board. I urge him to ensure that the directors he appoints are committed to the public service and have not got a business interest which could be at variance with the interests of An Bord Telecom or An Bord Phoist.
I should like to remind my colleagues that we have approximately 90 sections to get through. At the rate we are going, we will not reach some of the really important sections which are causing grave concern to many people, sections dealing with licensing, security of tenure, and other important areas. We will not reach them if Deputies are repetitive. I ask for the co-operation of all Deputies. Last night Deputy Mac Giolla voiced the same concern. Repetition is far from satisfactory.
I am glad the Minister introduced this amendment which was also submitted by The Workers' Party. It gives room for industrial democracy. If we are to have industrial democracy it is only right and fair that the Government should give a lead. They have done so in this case. I am glad the Minister accepted the necessity to increase the number. I do not agree with Deputy Enright in this regard. By any stretch of the imagination 12 is not a big number on any board.
I am concerned about the remarks made by Deputy Leyden vis-á-vis the existing board, that they should continue on by virtue of the fact that they have given service. Service should be recognised. I am a little suspicious because Deputy Leyden went so far as to name people in the House who should be retained on the board. This is rather irregular behaviour.
Part of the problem in the public sector to date has been that we have had people in it who were not committed to it. They headed semi-State bodies and they had no commitment to them. At the first opportunity, if there was an offer from a private concern they opted out. That has been the problem down through the years. They acquired expertise in the State sector and then they snapped at the first carrot dangled before them. If we have people who are committed to the State sector and are prepared to stick with it and develop it, we will have two very successful enterprises. The history of State enterprise to date has been bedevilled by the fact that from time to time we had people who were not committed to it. That is the great tragedy of State enterprise.
I hope that, in choosing people to act as directors, the Minister will choose people who have a commitment and the necessary expertise as well. There is a need to spell out clearly that there should not be a conflict of interest on the part of people on the board who may profit from being on the board. That is equally important. This position could be quite lucrative for some people. There will be massive contracts available. Huge sums of money may be transferred. Anybody on the board will be on the inside track. There must be no conflict of interest. Interest should be declared. Anybody who is interested in getting a contract from either of the two companies should be excluded from the boards. That would ensure that members will act in the best interests of the State. I welcome the Minister's amendment. I have no doubt that he will consider giving representation to members of the Post Office Workers' Union who are not represented at the moment. I thank him for that.
My intervention will be brief. I take slight issue with my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan. Everybody in this House can interpret what is and what is not a priority. Otherwise we would not be here at all. It strikes me that in the debate there is sympathy for the point of view of the trade unions. I welcome the extension of the board to ensure that there will be representation for the trade unions. I am not impressed by the mild attack Deputy O'Sullivan made on business people who have made a contribution to the existing service. My main purpose in rising to speak is to make sure that the voice of the person these services are intended to serve, the consumer, is heard.
Hear, hear.
It is understandable that trade unions want representation. They will be protecting their interests. Nobody suggests that a businessman or a manufacturer should be on the board to promote his own interest. That would be abhorrent to the House. Ideally those boards are there to serve the consumer, not the trade unions, not businessmen, not industrialists, but the person who is paying for the service. I should like the Minister to tell me what formula he has to serve the needs of the consumer. I am at variance with my colleague, Deputy Enright, on the number of members on the boards. I want the Minister to assure me that there will be representatives of the man and woman in the street on the boards, the consumer who will be paying for all this.
There will be a further special council for them.
I am concerned about the directorships. This is the power hub of any board. I would not limit membership to seven. I am glad it is being extended to 12. If it is not anticipated that the consumer will have a directorship, the section should be extended further. That is the extent of my contribution. We are promoting the cause of the trade unions and we should be in sympathy with the work force of the two State services, the postal and telecommunications services. Their interests must be guarded. I do not think they need have any fears in respect of either side of the House that those interests will be guarded irrespective of whether they dominate the directorship or not but, please, let us not forget the taxpayer who is paying for it all and let us guarantee that his interests will also be served.
I am very glad to hear Deputy Tunney speak as he has spoken. I absolutely agree with what he has been saying. I do not very often agree with him but I think he is absolutely correct in everything he says about the consumer interest here. Everybody sympathises with the workforce in the Post Office and with every other work force including those out of work altogether. One of the great handicaps which industrial development carries in this country is the abominable telephone service and to some extent the telex, telegram and postal services, although the telephone service is by miles the worst. The fact that it is so abominable deprives people of jobs because it is a very important element in making a negative decision for industrial investment here by foreign capital. The relevance of what Deputy Tunney says might have been pitched even more strongly than he did pitch it.
I tend to sympathise with Deputy Enright's view that seven is enough and 12 is probably too many, particularly since the section as it stands merely prescribes a minimum of seven at the moment but permits the Minister, provided he can get his colleague in the Department of Finance to permit it, to enlarge that number without limit. In other words, if the Minister has in mind to appoint any particular person or category of persons over and above seven he can do so without this amendment at all. What he is seeking to do is to retain the power to inflate the size of this board without limit but to raise the floor from seven to 12 as being the minimum number of directors. I confess that, although I am bound by the superior wisdom of my side and if this is voted on I will have to support the Minister and assume that he is right and I am wrong, I think he is wrong here. I do not see any reason for this enlargement when he has already got this discretionary power to go beyond the figure of seven if he and the Minister for Finance decide that is in the public interest.
I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan's plea that the Minister should take care that no possibility of a conflict of interest can arise on the part of people appointed to this board. The older one gets the more astonished one is by the ruthlessness, not to say dishonesty, of people who are perfectly willing to exploit a situation in which they find themselves, thanks to a public duty, for their own private advancement. Although I have no individual in mind here I have run across enough instances of it in my time to make me cynical. Deputy O'Sullivan's warning is very well placed and I hope the Minister will make sure that this particular topic is never the subject of criticism of himself or of any Minister who may hereafter be in his seat.
Deputy O'Sullivan, however, began by talking about people in the State sector who were not committed to it and who would then tend to wander off to private enterprise or would get creamed off by private enterprise. Deputy O'Sullivan has got the situation the wrong way around. I am delighted that the public sector should contain people who make such a mark in the service of the public sector that private industry wants to have them. My fear is that too many of the people in our public sector are people whom private industry sees as unemployable in market conditions and would not touch at any price. If somebody has demonstrated by his operations in the public sector that he is efficient and businesslike and that he brings success with him then that man has been committed to the public service for the length of time he has been in it. It is proved by the best yardstick of the lot, namely, that private enterprise, which operates in the market and does not have a statutory duty to anybody, wants to get hold of him. That, to me, is a sign that the public sector has rung the bell here for once. When we find on the other hand the public sector being run by people who are not being creamed off by private industry because private industry could not find a use for them then it is a moment for a Minister to decide that it is time to change his whole board around and put people in of a different hue and stamp.
I agree with Deputy De Rossa that the way this Committee Stage debate has been organised is unfortunate. This is an immensely important Bill. It is the first time since 1908 that basic legislation affecting the postal and telephone service has been the subject of parliamentary discussion. It is the first time since long before any of us were born and it is a shame that we should be having to discuss this in a day and a half——
If I may interrupt Deputy Kelly, we are only using what time we have in talking about something we can do nothing about. With the greatest respect, the time to make that point was when the order fixing the time limit came before the House and was agreed without dissent.
A Cheann Comhairle, be realistic. When did you ever hear a back-bench Deputy or a front bench one for that matter stand up and argue with his own Whip? I am not party to these arrangements but I can at least protest ——
That is what the Deputy is doing now.
There are two features of this Bill later on which interest me particularly. They are section 60, which contains the monopoly of the Post Office, and section 84, which renders the telecommunications company immune from civil liability for whatever injuries may result from its malfunctioning. This should be the subject of a special committee.
I feel it is my duty to remind the House that we have 88 sections and four Schedules to deal with in less than four hours, not making provision for divisions.
If we looked at the reasons for the setting up of these boards we might have a different outlook in relation to the directors. The services which we now propose to hive off to two different companies were provided under the aegis of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Having given consideration to this matter it was decided that the best way to make those services available to the public would be through the medium of these two companies. The consumer interest is of basic importance. These are commercial enterprises. The members of the interim boards of these two companies were selected because they had proved successful in their own fields. I felt at the time that if we could get people to serve on these boards who had already proved successful in their own fields we would have a much better chance of being successful in our efforts to provide a better postal and telecommunications service. I was strongly in favour of trade union representation on the interim boards. Trade union representatives were appointed. They were appointed simply because at that time there was no machinery for election from the ranks of the trade unions. It will be a changed situation in the case of the statutory boards. The people who are now serving on these boards had proved themselves as very successful business people and they took on an onerous task. Successful business people are not particularly anxious to try their hands at what is quite clearly a very difficult proposition on the basis that if they fail it could affect their general standing as successful business people. These people should be thanked for taking on the task and I ask the Minister when he is appointing new directors to the board to give very favourable consideration to the people who served during a very difficult time.
I wholeheartedly welcome the involvement of people in the trade unions and having them represented on these boards. The board would have no chance of success unless there was worker participation at director level. Deputy Faulkner spoke about getting people in from outside businesses to take an active part in this and he mentioned that they might not be successful. The public purse will have to carry the can in the event of failure but the people who will be brought in will have the necessary expertise and I do not think there is a danger of failure. Deputy De Rossa said he did not see anything wrong with bureaucracy but we must remember that someone has to pay for it. We are talking about two separate companies and increasing the membership of these boards from seven to 12. That is ten additional people at that level and that is why I am expressing concern on this matter.
This got ample coverage under sections 12 and 14 where the principal objects were spelt out clearly.
They will be only talking shops.
There are 88 amendments and there will be public disquiet if we do not get through some of them. I ask Deputies to speed up matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 a not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, subsection (2), lines 3 to 5, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—
"(b) the chairman and two-thirds of the directors shall be appointed and may be removed from office by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance. A third of the directors shall be elected in the manner prescribed in section 32 of this Act. The directors other than those nominated by the Minister may not be removed by the Minister without prior consultation with the recognised trade unions and staff associations in the case of the directors elected under section 32 of this Act;"
This section enables the Minister to remove directors from the board and the amendment seeks to require him to consult with the trade unions and staff associations in a case where he intends to remove worker directors, that is directors who have been elected by the work force in the two companies. It is simply a means of protecting the interests of those who have been elected rather than appointed by him.
This is standard format under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises Act,) 1977, and if we did it here it would create a precedent. I know the Minister for Labour has that Act under review with the intention of updating it so it would be dealt with by the Department of Labour.
I support this amendment and I appeal to the Minister to consider it in the light of the debate we had yesterday and the approach he took to proposals put forward. In fairness to the section and the amendment, basically it means that the Minister could not remove people who were elected by the unions and their representatives and there is a lot to be said for that. In any event it is very unlikely to arise unless the board were not carrying out their statutory functions and a decision would have to be made if that happened. It is a safeguard that in the event of the board not carrying out the functions laid down in the Bill the Minister could remove members. However, the unions should be informed of events taking place because the people on the board representing staff associations are elected by them and I would not like the Minister to have that power. I suggest that The Workers' Party should withdraw this amendment and that the Minister should consider it on Report Stage.
Our amendment does not seek to take from the Minister the power to remove directors. It merely requires him to consult with the recognised trade unions and associations from which the directors have been elected. I do not see that if conflicts with anything else. It may not be the practice in other State companies but that is not a good reason for not introducing it at this point.
As I have already pointed out, there is a review of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, and I will certainly draw this matter to the attention of the Minister concerned as I do not disagree with this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
By agreement, amendments Nos. 34, 34a and 35 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 15, subsection (2), lines 12 to 15, to delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following:—
"(e) the company shall, in consultation and agreement with recognised trade unions and staff associations, set up machinery for the purposes of negotiations concerned with the pay and conditions of service of its staff;
Section 16 sets out provisions which must be included in the articles of association of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. The purpose of this amendment is to require the agreement of the staff organisations for any staff negotiation machinery to be set up by the companies and not merely consultation with those organisations. The amendment is proposed in deference to a recommendation made by staff unions and associations in the course of the on-going consultations about the re-organisation. In practice, negotiating machinery would be ineffective if it were unacceptable to staff associations and unions. The amendment also substitutes the words "recognised trade unions and staff associations" for the words "any organisation appearing to it to be appropriate" in the original. This too is in response to staff representations. The original words were intended only to relate to recognised trade unions and staff associations and not to unspecified other organisations but such recognition was envisaged specifically under and in accordance with the agreed formal negotiation machinery rather than before such machinery is established. It is accepted now that that recognition need not necessarily be so delayed.
We will withdraw amendment No. 35 in favour of the Minister's amendment No. 34. The record of the staff of the Post Office over the past 60 or 70 years is excellent in terms of negotiations.
The only variation in my amendment No. 34a is that it specifies postmasters of sub-post offices which are not regarded as staff. In that regard I asked a parliamentary question on 8 June 1983 about when the results of a joint arbitration on pay and conditions of postmasters of sub-offices would be available. The Minister said that the hearing of the claim was still continuing and that it was not possible to say when the arbitrator's report would be available. I should like to ask the Minister to expedite that pay agreement because it should be settled before the boards come into operation. It is appropriate to mention the word "postmasters" or "sub-post offices" in this amendment. It strengthens the postmasters' position in relation to negotiations. I am very anxious that the Minister would include that title and that my amendment be accepted.
I am unable to accept Deputy Leyden's amendment. Negotiating machinery for staff and postmasters are quite different. Postmasters are contractors as distinct from employees. The existing negotiating machinery for postmasters forms part of the contractual conditions of postmasters and would therefore be suitable for adoption to take account of the establishment of An Post, to be carried forward to a new company in accordance with section 39.
I understand that in discussions with the postmasters union, clear and specific undertakings have been given in relation to future negotiating machinery in An Post.
Would the Minister, on Report Stage, give consideration to introducing an amendment that the company shall, in consultation and agreement recognise trade unions which are currently in the conciliation and arbitration scheme and staff associations. It is only unions which are now recognised under this scheme which would receive recognition.
Yes, recognised unions are defined in section 2 of the Bill which we passed earlier. Perhaps we should look at that Bill.
Trade unions which are currently recognised. That is important.
I do not know about the constitutional point, but I will consider the point made by the Deputy and see what we can do.
The question is on recognising trade unions which are in existence at the moment. There is a danger in the future that it may be required that a union decide——
That is the point I am making.
There is a danger in specifying that any particular union would be recognised and that that is the union favoured to be recognised. We cannot anticipate the future in relation to particular sections.
Agreed.
Nobody would try to do that in anyone's best interest. I feel strongly about this section. Postmasters should be recognised in relation to this area because of their contribution outlined yesterday. They play a major part in relation to the work of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Their position would be strengthened by the inclusion of the statement which is in my amendment and I am putting the amendment.
For guidance, are we going to take all these amendments together?
No, we cannot take them all together. I am putting amendment No. 34. If that is accepted, amendment 34a may not be moved and amendment No. 35 has been withdrawn. I am putting the question "That amendment No. 34 be made".
Is this the Minister's amendment?
Yes.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCartin, Joe.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael, (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moyníhan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Power, Paddy.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 34a and 35 may not be moved.
On a point of order, my amendment No. 34a should be moved at this stage. I wish to move the amendment and to vote on it. It is totally different from the Minister's amendment.
The Deputy's amendment was discussed with amendment No. 34. It may not be discussed now but to clarify the position for Deputy Leyden, amendment No. 34a is classified as an alternative to amendment No. 34. In accordance with procedure, No. 34 having been accepted, 34a, because it is an alternative, may not be moved. Otherwise, we would be moving amendments all day. Of course the Deputy will be free to call a vote on his amendment on Report Stage.
Is not every amendment more or less an alternative to another?
Regarding Deputy Leyden's amendment, there is specific reference to sub-postmasters, a group who are not being provided for.
Paragraph (e) of section 16 is gone now and is replaced by another paragraph. Apart from the point about Deputy Leyden's amendment being an alternative, the words he sought to delete are no longer there.
There are other words now. It seems to me that the normal rule of an alternative is that the adoption of one amendment necessarily excludes the adoption of an alternative but in this case Deputy Leyden's amendment is to add words——
It is to delete words first.
——to the amendment we have adopted. Therefore, they are not mutually exclusive.
The words which Deputy Leyden proposed to delete are no longer there. I have accepted the advice that was given to me.
Human advice is never infallible.
That is why I am here.
In other words, the Chair is infallible.
Obviously, the Chair accepts that Deputy Leyden's amendment was valid but if in all future legislation any Minister can stymie all Opposition amendments by inserting an amendment of its own, there will be no point in our being here.
I do not think the Deputy is right. Deputy Leyden's amendment is an alternative but the words which he proposed to delete are already gone. In fact, by voting against the Minister's amendment Deputy Leyden could be said to have voted for his own amendment.
That was the intention. We have no alternative but to accept your ruling, but it leaves the Opposition in a peculiar position. Is it the position that Deputy Leyden's amendment is not in order now to be proceeded with because the words he proposed to have deleted have gone already?
Yes.
And not because his amendment is an alternative to the Minister's.
For both reasons.
I would challenge your ruling if it is on the basis that the Deputy's amendment is an alternative to the amendment in the name of the Minister. If you say that technically the reason for your ruling is that the words which Deputy Leyden proposed to delete are already gone, I would have to accept that as a compelling reason.
It is one of the reasons.
You do yourself less than justice by adopting both reasons. Undoubtedly Deputy Leyden's amendment is legitimate in terms of an alternative to the Minister's amendment and one which in the normal course of events he should be allowed to put.
He could put it on Report Stage.
He should be able to put the amendment on Committee Stage because, as Deputy Tunney has pointed out, otherwise the Minister can negative the efforts of the Opposition simply by putting down his own amendments. If you say to us that Deputy Leyden's amendment is out of order on the basis that the words he wishes to have deleted have gone already, we have no alternative but to accept that ruling but I could not accept as a precedent your ruling out Deputy Leyden's amendment simply on the grounds of its being an alternative to the Minister's amendment.
I am ruling it out because the words he proposed to be deleted have been deleted already and other words are there now. I am ruling out the amendment also on the grounds that it is an alternative amendment.
This is a very important question.
That may be so but it may not be challenged here. If the Deputy so wishes, he may challenge it elsewhere.
Surely this is where it can be challenged by way of points of order. We are dealing with the order of the House and asking you to consider a reasonable submission from us.
I have ruled on the matter.
I have no objection to the section as it stands. I merely wish to add the few extra words, "and postmasters of sub-post offices". It is legitimate to add those words to the words that have been agreed. I have no wish to vote against the section but I am anxious to vote in favour of my amendment.
Paragraph (e) no longer exists.
If you were to rest your case on that, we would have no alternative but to accept it.
There is a regulation governing what can be raised on Report Stage. You are not insisting that the amendment has failed, because if that were the case it would not be possible for Deputy Leyden to raise it again on Report Stage.
I am not ruling that the proposal cannot be put forward again on Report Stage.
In other words, the same amendment can be put forward on Report Stage.
It would be in order then.
I think you will agree that it will be totally in order for Deputy Leyden to raise on the section the point that is enshrined in his amendment and also that he will be entitled to vote against the section on the basis that his words are not included.
He may vote against the section and he may give the reasons during his speech for so doing, though he does not have to give any reason.
We on this side of the House are logical people and we do not act without very good reason.
I suggest that you are not putting the time of the House to the best use. We have 88 sections and four Schedules to complete in about three hours.
This is an unfortunate consequence of the way in which the Government run their business.
It is a consequence of an order made by this House without dissent.
Amendments Nos. 34a and 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 15, subsection (2), lines 16 to 18, to delete paragraph (f).
This amendment proposes to delete paragraph (f) which requires that the company shall not invest in any other undertaking without the approval of the Minister and after the consent of the Minister for Finance. I consider the section to be too restrictive and also to be inflexible. We were told that the reason for establishing a company rather than a statutory corporation was to give the board flexibility in deciding on their business. I understand also that the manner in which the board carry out their business will be governed by the memorandum and articles of association and that they cannot invest in a company other than those which are related directly to their existing business and which are governed by the memorandum and articles of association. These articles and memorandum cannot be changed without the permission of the Minister. Subsection (2) (f) is too restrictive and will result in inflexibility in the board. For that reason I seek to have it deleted.
This amendment is unacceptable. The primary purpose of the companies is to provide an efficient postal and telecommunications service and they will be expected to concentrate their financial resourses accordingly. Investment in outside undertakings might not necessarily be related to those services and could affect those services adversely. As the State, in the person of the Minister for Finance will be guaranteeing the borrowing of the companies it is reasonable to require ministerial approval for outside investments. There is no reason why reasonable proposals for such investments would not be approved.
Deputy De Rossa is asking us to give certain freedoms which other State companies such as Aer Lingus do not enjoy. The Minister is a shareholder in the companies and it is only right that he exercise some control over the type of investment proposed to be entered into. It is necessary to retain this paragraph in the Bill and I am opposed to the amendment.
Subsection (2) (f) is restrictive and a lot of Deputies on both sides of the House have urged that the boards be given as much freedom as possible consistent with the interests of the public and the need to provide an efficient and comprehensive service. The paragraph does not refer to "outside undertakings" it says:
the company shall not invest in any other undertaking without the approval of the Minister.
That is far too restrictive. The Minister will appoint most of the directors, the rest of them will be elected by the employees of the company and the memorandum and articles will be prepared in consultation with the Minister so I cannot see a necessity for restricting the activities of the companies further. Also, if the articles of association have to be changed the Minister's permission must be sought. I press this amendment.
The Minister should say why he feels it necessary to retain this section. The wording in paragraph (f) means that the companies will be restricted very much. However, from a democratic point of view the Members of this House have no objection to some form of control by the Minister. There would be a lot of merit in deleting this subsection. This paragraph could inhibit the company from getting involved in advantageous business activities. Would this paragraph preclude the companies from getting involved in the courier service in competition with illegal couriers? Would it restrict An Bord Telecom from becoming involved in the supply of internal telephones, other consumer equipment associated with telephones and other business activities which would complement their main activity? The Minister's views on this should be recorded to be a guideline to the companies when they are considering business ventures.
The Posts and Telegraphs Review Group in chapter 14 (20) of their report recommended that subject to the consent of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs new bodies should be empowered to invest in any undertaking carrying on an activity which appears to them to be requisite, advantageous or incidental to or it appears to them to facilitate the performance by them of any of their functions. This recommendation was accepted in the 1981 White Paper. In addition, since the Minister for Finance will, under section 26 of the Bill, be empowered to guarantee approved borrowing by the bodies, it is considered appropriate that his prior consent ought to be required before they invest in outside undertakings. Section 16 (2) (f) of the Bill provides accordingly. It is not unreasonable that the Minister, who will own almost all of the shares on behalf of the public, should expect to be consulted about any outside investments they might contemplate. There may be some concern about how the provisions would operate in practice but there is no reason why reasonable proposals would not be approved. It is a fairly normal provision which should be accepted.
The paragraph states that the company shall not invest in any other undertaking without the approval of the Minister. Both the Minister and the Minister of State keep emphasising "outside undertakings". "Outside undertakings" imply undertakings which have no connection with the business for which the board was established whereas "any undertaking" precludes them from investing in anything without the Minister's approval.
This paragraph should stand. The two boards are being set up with public money. If these bodies were to move into other fields of business they could come into open competition with firms which are operating on a knife edge and they could cause difficulties for these firms. The Bill as set out ensures that the companies will deal in their own sphere and that other business investments would have to be approved by the Minister. That is a reasonable provision when public funds are involved. If the investments proposed come within the ambit of the boards' terms of reference, approval would be forthcoming. The setting up of these boards means the setting up of new structures and I feel that the paragraph is necessary.
I have made my position clear. This is a necessary section. I am very concerned about the slow progress we are making because major amendments are coming up and I implore Deputies to let us get on with it. I think we will have only about two minutes left per section. I ask that the question be put.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I am not agreeing to section 16 on the basis that my amendment No. 34 (a) was not approved by the House. I have no objection to the Minister's amendment except that I want to add extra words to protect the position of postmasters of sub-post offices. I regret that the Minister has not agreed to give them extra protection and I know that the 2,076 postmasters will be extremely disappointed by the attitude of Fine Gael and Labour on this issue. I am opposing the whole section as a result.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 37 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 15, lines 19 and 20, to delete ", 1963 and 1977".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
There should be some formal notification to the trade unions of any significant change in the articles of association. I have already discussed this with the Minister. It would be conducive to good industrial relations.
I said on section 11 that I was looking at section 17 with a view to the possible introduction of an amendment on Report Stage to allow for the points raised by the Deputy.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "the provisions of this Act" and substitute "section 37 and 38".
This is a technical drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 was discussed with amendment No. 35.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 15, lines 28 to 37, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:—
"(2) The telecommunications company shall issue shares to the Minister to the value of the property transferred to it on the vesting day in accordance with sections 37 and 38, less the amount by which sums issued by the Minister for Finance under the Telecommunications Capital Acts, 1924 to 1981, which have not been repaid before that day exceed the sum of £355,000,000 plus the amount of the outstanding liability of the Minister to Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited immediately before the vesting day.".
This amendment has two purposes. First, it deletes all references to loans et cetera involving Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited which were included in reserve, that is, in case any loans arose. This is not appropriate now as no such loans have arisen and none is envisaged. Secondly, it corrects the reference to £355 million of unpaid advances under the Telecommunications Capital Acts, 1924 to 1981, which are to be converted into shares of An Bord Telecom Éireann and provides for an additional amount of those advances to be converted into shares of An Bord Telecom Éireann corresponding to the liability of the telecommunications service for unpaid leasing charges of that amount which BTE will be required to discharge to Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited under section 39. The balance of the unpaid advances under those Acts will be a liability of BTE to discharge under the new section 35 being inserted by amendment No. 116. We have already discussed this on amendment No. 25 and it makes arrangements to give BTE extra equity of the order of about £80 million.
The Minister indicated yesterday that this extra amount was to cover inflation from the time the original figure was agreed. Is it exclusively to cover that?
It is to recognise that there has been inflation and increased borrowing. It is to maintain some sort of parity between debt and equity.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 40 is the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 41 is consequential and amendment No. 43 is related. Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 15, before section 19, to insert the following new section:—
"19.—(1) The postal company shall issue to the Minister for Finance one share of one pound in the share capital of the company.
(2) The telecommunications company shall issue to the Minister for Finance one share of one pound in the share capital of the company.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister for Finance may exercise in respect of his share in the share capital of each company all the rights and powers of a holder of such shares and, where a right or power is exercisable by attorney, exercise it by his attorney.
(4) The Minister for Finance shall not transfer or alienate his share in the share capital of either company.".
It is standard for the Minister for Finance to be a shareholder of every State-sponsored company. Accordingly, the purpose of this amendment is to enable the Minister for Finance to hold one share in the share capital of both An Bord Poist and An Bord Telecom Éireann. Subsection (4) prohibits him from disposing of those shares by sale et cetera. All the other shares in each company will be owned by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on behalf of the State. As Minister for Posts and Telegraphs he will be responsible for public policy in relation to postal and telecommunications services. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs too is being prohibited from disposing of any of his shares by a new section 22 to be inserted by amendment No. 42.
I support this amendment, particularly the provision whereby the Minister for Finance shall not transfer or alienate his share in the share capital of either company. The Minister and the Government must retain complete control over both companies. That will ensure continuity of tenure and the security of staff.
What will be the initial share capital of An Bord Poist? Would the Minister care to comment on his policy with regard to the £50 million if the Government decide to give that money to finance capital work in exchange for shares? The wording of the Bill gives that option.
Mr. Mitchell
We are dealing with An Bord Telecom but the share capital of An Bord Poist will be £40 million approximately.
How will that be made up?
It will be made up of assets of £30 million and working capital of £10 million.
Would the Minister like to comment on the £50 million which was a bone of contention when we were working this out?
The section is enabling in relation to the £50 million. It could be made available either in the form of equity or loans.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendment No. 41 has already been dealt with.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 16, line 4, after "19,", to insert "20,".
The Chair is travelling very fast.
This deals with the issue of share capital. I accept the Minister's amendment but I am interested in the possibility of issuing shares to a third party under this section. I am not opposed in principle to the company raising money from private sources or on the money markets but I do not want a loss of control on the part of either company through the issue of these shares. Would the Minister introduce an amendment on Report Stage to ensure such shares will not carry voting rights? It is essential that the company should retain control and any sale of shares should not carry voting rights. That is essential if the companies are to retain control.
If there was any decision to increase share capital there would have to be specific amending legislation in order to do so.
Who envisages that? Is it the chairman or a civil servant?
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will be the owner of all but one share and the Minister for Finance will be the owner of that one share. I am sorry: for technical purposes two civil servants would hold one share. That would be designated to them by the Minister.
Will it be the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Minister for Finance?
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
This is an enabling provision.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 16, before section 22, to insert the following new section:—
"22.—(1) The Minister may, from time to time as occasion requires for the purpose of compliance with so much of the Companies Acts as requires that there shall always be at least two members of each company, transfer to any person one of his shares in such company.
(2) Save as authorised by subsection (1), the Minister shall not transfer or alienate any of his shares in either company.".
This is a very important Bill and we are just skipping through it. Two days is far too little for a Bill of this kind.
I have no control over that.
I just make the point.
This is a very important amendment. It is one to which I am committed because it gives a strong commitment to workers that there is no intention to jeopardise their employment. If any attempts were made in that direction the matter would have to come before this House. The purpose of the amendment is to preclude the Minister from selling any of the shares in either company in the absence of specific enabling legislation. It has never been the intention that the Minister should sell any of the shares. The amendment should also allay staff fears by reinforcing the point that the postal and telecommunications services will remain firmly within the public sector. Similar steps to prevent the prohibition on the sale of State owned shares exist in relation to both the National Stud and Fóir Teoranta.
Our main objective is to secure the position of the staff and ensure no adverse changes so far as security of tenure is concerned. Deputy Wilson was anxious at all times to ensure the Bill would guarantee the position of the staff and we are glad the Minister is following the headline set by his predecessor.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendment No. 43 has already been discussed with amendment No. 40.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 16, lines 35 to 38, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:—
"(2) All amounts representing dividends or other money received by the Minister for Finance in respect of his share in the share capital of either company and all amounts representing repayment of or interest on loans received or recovered by him from either company shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as he may direct.".
This is a standard provision requiring the payment into the Exchequer of dividends and other moneys received from the company.
I am interested in the latter part of the amendment which provides that moneys received shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as may be directed. I believe such moneys should be used to improve and develop the services. Difficulties can arise if the money is paid into the Exchequer, as we know from experience. Every possible incentive will be needed for the first five years at least to ensure the companies operate satisfactorily.
I endorse what has been said by Deputy Leyden. Yesterday we were talking about the European Investment Bank and the disbursement of moneys and I complained, and this was the general view of the House, that a Department as important as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs when getting money from the European Investment Bank get it via the Exchequer. But the advantage of the low rate of interest is not transferred to the Department; it is enjoyed by the Exchequer. Often in the past we had the Road Fund, for example, raided for money and the expenditure of those funds bore no relation whatsoever to the original purpose for which the fund had been formed. We do not have any amendment down but we comment on it for the benefit of some future Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are related.
I move amendment No.44:
In page 16, subsection (1), after line 51, to insert the following paragraph:—
"(d) For the purposes of this subsection moneys borrowed in a currency other than the currency of the State shall be deemed to be the equivalent in the currency of the State of the actual moneys borrowed, such equivalent being calculated according to the rate of exchange at the time of the borrowing for that currency and the currency of the State."
This amendment deals with section 25 (1). This is a standard provision setting limits for borrowing for capital purposes by An Bord Poist and An Bord Telecom Éireann at £58.5 million and £1,400 million respectively. The purpose of the amendment is to protect against currency fluctuations by providing for the conversion of foreign currency to Irish punts at the time of the actual draw down. A similar provision was made for the ESB in section 3 of the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act and is already made in section 26 (3) of the Bill in relation to limits on ministerial guarantee of the companies' borrowing.
I do not disagree with the section but I should like to refer to comments made yesterday in regard to both companies. The Minister informed us he would not have any influence over the boards in relation to the banks they would be involved with. I suggest the Minister should reconsider the position. It is possible that both boards will spread their financial business among two or three Irish banks. That could be a very lucrative business for the banks. There may be much lobbying among the banking organisations to get the business of the two companies.
I wonder has the Minister any bias. I personally have not because, like most Deputies, all the banks are represented in my constituency. However, I should like to see fair competition between all the banks. This will be the biggest single transfer of finance business since the foundation of the State. I remember when the health boards were set up we had a most unseemly row between two banking organisations for the business. A most amazing situation developed in the Western Health Board area. At one meeting of the Western Health Board a particular bank was appointed but at following meetings that decision was rescinded.
The Minister should give this matter special consideration. There is no specific provision in the Bill to ensure that the Irish banking institutions — the registered licensed banks — will be allowed to tender for the business of both companies. Indeed the Bill does not specifically exclude outside banking interests from getting involved. The Bill does not provide that the Department of Finance, through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, could give a licence to An Bord Poist, in particular, to finance the board from the Savings Bank and the other banking activities carried out by the Department at the moment.
I would express a note of warning here because of what I read about the situation in my constituency in regard to the health board. Certain pressures were brought on the members of health boards when they were first appointed to trade with particular banks. In the hope that that can be avoided I suggest the Minister should have ultimate control. I would not have any reservation about a Minister having representations made to him. He could bear in mind the recommendations by the companies. I believe both companies should spread their business among the major Irish registered banking organisations. These institutions employ quite a number of staff. I also point to the amount of business carried out by the present Department of Posts and Telegraphs with the major banks.
On the point that the companies should spread their business among the major banks, it would be invidious if the Minister would intervene. The companies might wish to change bankers in time to come and if Ministers were to be interfering there could be allegations of political interference. We have to be particularly careful to avoid that.
As Minister I had many discussions with representatives of the boards and we had a Bill, now an Act, in regard to the investment company. It is important to emphasise what the board members stressed to me in the discussions. They said they should keep a very close eye on the money market in regard to borrowings, particularly in regard to An Bord Telecom. By deploying the undoubted expertise that is available in regard to this matter we can gain and avoid losses through fluctuations in the value of the punt against foreign currencies. In view of that danger our own money market should be exploited to the full.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 17, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:—
"(3) (a) Without prejudice to section 2 (6), references in subsections (1) and (2) to either company include references to a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963) of that company.
(b) Where either company and a subsidiary thereof have at any one time borrowings under this section, the limits on borrowings provided for apply on the aggregate at any one time of borrowings by the company concerned and the subsidiary and, in the case of subsections (1) (c) and (2), borrowings before the vesting day by Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are related.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "£1,050,000,000" and substitute "£1,400,000,000".
This amendment makes provision for inflation. We are increasing the figure from £1,050 million to £1,400 million. Section 26 is a standard provision dealing with the guarantee by the Minister for Finance of approved borrowing by An Bord Telecom. It applies to subsidiaries of the company to the extent to which they are carrying out the functions of the body.
Subsection (2) refers to a sum of £8.5 million in relation to the postal company. In present circumstances is that figure adequate? In increasing the amount to £1,400 million the Minister is taking into account the inflationary spiral since the Bill was drafted. Therefore, I accept the amendment.
If the inflation criterion applies to the telecommunications company why does it not apply to the postal company?
The amendment takes care of the passage of time and the increased amount of borrowing in that time.
Does it not apply equally to the postal company?
It does not because nearly all the borrowing is done on the telecommunications side.
There has been a run down of the business of the postal services and therefore the major difficulty must be faced by the postal company. It is an indication of the type of investment that has gone on in the past. It is evident that the telecommunications company will start out with a stronger base than the postal board. Later on I will be asking the Minister to reconsider the level of subvention to the postal board.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 18, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsections:—
"(10) (a) Without prejudice to section 2 (6), references in this section to either company include references to a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963) of that company.
(b) Where there are in force at any one time guarantees under or by virtue of this section in respect of either company and of a subsidiary thereof, the relevant limit specified in subsection (2) shall apply to the aggregate of the amounts which the Minister for Finance is at any one time liable to pay under such guarantees.
(11) (a) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited Act, 1981, all guarantees given under that Act before the vesting day by the Minister for Finance of borrowings or of payment of instalments or other amounts of money by Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited shall continue in force as if they were given by him under this section.
(b) This subsection is without prejudice to section 21 of the Interpretation Act, 1937.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendment No. 48 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 18, subsection (2), line 49, to delete "three years" and substitute "five years".
The proposal is to extend the period from three years to five years during which grants could be made by the Minister. We consider that three years is too short a period during which the company could be expected to establish viability. Two other amendments, which have been ruled out of order, sought to have the time extended to give the two companies an opportunity to get off the ground. The Post Office is in a very run down condition. It has to be modernised in regard to equipment and buildings as well as its transport fleet. Many State companies are very heavily burdened by borrowing and any surplus they make is eaten up by interest payments. For that reason we are anxious that sufficient capital will be made available to the companies to give them time to develop and that sufficient grant money would be available to them also to get them established and so avoid the necessity to borrow heavily from the private banking sector, thus ensuring that the company succeed.
An Post will start off with 100 per cent equity. They will inherit no debt, unlike An Bord Telecom who will inherit very substantial debts.
It should be recognised that the postal service has been in surplus for some time now. They made a profit last year and it is envisaged that they will make profits, that they will be in surplus, and the £20 million provided here is purely to enable their starting off operation in the first three years. It would be wrong for this House to contemplate the situation whereby they would be losing money each year. This gets back to the fundamental point about State enterprise. I believe in State enterprise and I know that Deputy De Rossa and Deputy O'Sullivan believe in it also. Fianna Fáil spokesmen have made statements indicating——
We started nearly all the State enterprises.
——that they had no antipathy towards it. A philosophical point about State enterprises is that in the past we have tended to lumber them with all sorts of duties and responsibilities that made them almost destined not to failure but to lack of success. That gets a bad name for State enterprise. We are fully confident and expectant that An Post will be a profitable business and we do not think that it should be a burden on the Exchequer. The service should be paid for by those who use it and the more who use it the better. As an interim arrangement we are allowing for a starting situation over three years by providing this £20 million.
On Second Stage on this section I questioned Deputy Wilson as a former Minister saying that he could make available to the company a sum of £50 million.
We are talking about £20 million in this.
I asked him about the record of the debate. The Minister has indicated now that he is going to make this £50 million available but I would like to say something regarding the transfer to——
The Deputy may be on the wrong section.
No, I am on section 27.
It is £20 million.
All right, on the £20 million——
It is section 27 (2).
If the Deputy will allow me I will get back to that. The Minister said there will be no debt.
They will start off with no debt.
The Minister said that there would be no debt in the transfer. The offices of the company in terms of buildings, plant and so forth at the first costing were £38 million updated. The telecommunications company had massive investment over the years, and Deputy Faulkner said yesterday quite rightly that a programme was embarked upon some years back which provided ample structures for the development of the telecommunications company. This has not been the case in the Post Office. I invited Deputy Leyden, as Minister of State at the Department, to Cork to see the structure there which is unbelievable.
It is diabolical.
That is my fear about the whole thing. An Post are starting off with buildings which are outdated. Deputy Kelly yesterday criticised the level of service provided by An Post. This is in no small way due to the type of buildings that they have which were never intended as post offices. They do not make for very efficient service because people there are working under frightful conditions. This has led to a great deal of unrest and deterioration of service. We are on amendment No. 49 regarding the three to five years. The Minister is precluded from accepting the other two amendments of The Workers' Party by virtue of the cost to the Exchequer. Here we have a proposal for a sum of £20 million payable over three years rather than five years. From the point of view of the Post Office it would be better to accept it over a three-year period than over a five-year period. I would much prefer to get my £20 million in three years rather than in five.
I know the genesis of this and I changed it from five years to three years because I could not move the £20 million up. I am in agreement with Deputy O'Sullivan.
It is better to give it in three years than five.
It is giving £6 million odd per year as against £4 million. Whilst the buildings are termed an asset they can be quite a liability inasmuch as they are in a run-down state.
Absolutely.
I ask the Minister that the money would be paid through share capital rather than through Exchequer loans as suggested in the section. In getting off the ground the Post Office have a great deal of ground to make up on their counterparts in telecommunications and it will not be possible for them to fund these loans in the short term and so the whole thing could be off to a bad start. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this means rather than to Exchequer loans and other means as suggested in the section.
In this area there is nothing wrong with the amendment by The Workers' Party in relation to substituting £100 million for £50 million. It is a maximum sum. The words are "not exceeding". Therefore, it is not really a financial motion in a sense because it does not say that the Minister will have to give £50 million.
Are you referring to amendment No. 48?
Yes.
That is ruled out of order.
I am just making the point. I do not see the reason for ruling it out of order. It would not cost the Exchequer anything until the borrowing arose. In a few years time the Minister will have to bring an amendment to amend section 18 to allow for an increase if not of £100 million of at least £75 million. I do not believe that £50 million will be adequate for loans to finance capital works.
As Deputy O'Sullivan said, I travelled to Cork on behalf of the Minister to review the situation there and it is absolutely diabolical. The conditions under which the workers there are operating are really dreadful. Our endeavour was to do something about it there but the financial situation was as difficult in our time as it is now. I do not know if any great improvement has taken place, but the building adjoining the sorting office was collapsing; that was the old cinema in Cork. Deputy O'Sullivan is right; far from being a great asset, many of those buildings are an absolute liability. They are falling apart. From my experience in the Department and the opportunity to view post offices in some locations in the country, Sligo and elsewhere, they leave much to be desired, but above and beyond them all the worst was in Cork.
Water was leaking through the roof and people were running around with buckets trying to keep the water away from the mail.
I thought it never rained in Cork.
I am delighted we have reached section 27 because it has a fundamental bearing on the flexibility of this company. I sympathise with the company taking on these liabilities. The majority of the buildings are in a diabolical condition. They are outdated and outmoded and require major investment. As a former architect and from my experience of present day costs I am of the opinion that it is necessary for the Minister to allocate at least £75 million for investment in buildings and other capital works. In the course of his reply the Minister should tell the House the number of buildings in the possesion of the Department. I accept that they have been valued at £38 million but that figure may be exaggerated. The Minister, or a future occupant of that office, should be in a position to allow extra borrowing for investment in buildings.
The first item on the agenda for discussion by the new board will be the carrying out of a survey of all the buildings under their control. I accept that there are some very fine buildings. When Fianna Fáil were in office a lot of work was carried out and it is interesting to note that today a Minister of State is opening a new post office in Mullingar which was built under Fianna Fáil. The building programme is already under way and compared to the accommodation that An Bord Poist will inherit An Bord Telecom have a distinct asset. In fact, in my constituency of Roscommon work is well under way on the erection of new engineering headquarters. When in Government Fianna Fáil were responsible for an accelerated building programme under former Ministers Reynolds, Wilson and Faulkner. An Bord Telecom will be inheriting fine assets as far as buildings are concerned, buildings that compare favourably with any installations I viewed in other countries. On the other hand An Bord Poist are not inheriting good assets.
With regard to the subvention for the first three years I hope that the finance to be allocated by the Government will be adequate. Deputy Wilson reduced the period from five years to three years and in view of that, and the comments made by the Minister, The Workers' Party should consider withdrawing their amendment because it does not assist the company in any way. It must be remembered that there are areas where the company will provide a social service which from a business point of view could not be regarded as economic.
For example, the telegram service is losing £300,000 per annum and the new board will be inheriting that.
One would almost want to win the Sweep to send one.
That section is losing a lot of money and when that figure is deducted from the £6.6 million it does not leave much to be spread around. I hope the Department or the new board do not have to plead with a future Fianna Fáil Minister for more money on the basis that they are not able to run the uneconomic services. I accept that in difficult economic times it is hard to allocate more than £20 million but I do not believe that amount will be adequate to finance the many services to be operated by An Bord Poist. I accept what the former Minister said about having had to fight very hard to get an allocation of that amount. I would prefer to have a period of five years with a sum in the region of £35 million rather than a three-year period with an allocation of £20 million. I believe the motivation behind the amendment by The Workers' Party is to provide more finance to help the new company get working.
The amendment under discussion must be considered in the context of the two amendments that have been ruled out of order, Nos. 48 and 50. In amendment No. 50 we sought to increase the amount the Minister could grant to An Bord Poist from £20 million to £40 million and in amendment No. 48 we ought to increase the amount the company could borrow from £50 million to £100 million. I do not believe £50 million will be sufficient to carry out the capital works necessary to bring our postal service up to scratch and operating in modern buildings and using up to date equipment. I have heard a Member say that buildings in Cork were in a bad condition but the postal sorting office in Tallaght is rat-infested and falling down around the ears of postmen. I understand that they have not been able to occupy a temporary warehouse there because the money is not available to instal the necessary equipment. There is a great need for capital investment and because £50 million will not be sufficient An Bord Poist will have to go to the banks and borrow at inflated interest rates. That will cause problems. It should be remembered that there are many State companies in serious trouble because of the amount of interest they have to pay to the private banking institutions. In fact, many of those companies are in the red because of the huge sums they must pay in interest. I appeal to the Minister to consider raising the £50 million allocation to £100 million and increase the £20 million provision to £40 million. I accept the case that it is better to have £20 million over three years than to have that amount over five years but our amendment was tabled with a view to increasing that figure to £40 million.
I should like to tell Deputy Leyden that the telegram service is losing a lot more money than he mentioned but that is related to the Telecom side and not in regard to An Bord Poist. In the case of An Bord Poist they will have assets transferred to them of £32.5 million and £10 million working capital. There is an enabling provision whereby they can get up to £50 million from Exchequer finance for capital works under section 27 (1) to be provided wholly in exchange for shares. That means that there is an authorised maximum of £92.5 million plus the £20 million.
With regard to the points made by Deputy De Rossa in seeking an increase in the allocations I am sure he will accept, as I do, that taxes are at the limit. Any time there is talk of a cutback the Government are accused of Thatcherite monetarism. Why, therefore, should we be imposing extra charges on the Exchequer which can be avoided if we can impose them on a service which has the potential for growth and to be able to look after these things? The direction should be to get the growth which is there. The potential exists to get new business and that is the direction I want An Bord Poist to follow. I am sure all Members would prefer that rather then the board having a deontas mentality, depending on grants. That would be fatal. It is important that it is made clear that this is a commercial enterprise which has proved to be profitable in the past and is capable of greater profits in the future. In this case the profits could be employed to the advantage of the service and the State.
If Deputy De Rossa wanted to improve the situation he should have suggested that the £20 million should be available over two years, that there should be a £10 million fund per annum for expenditure. With regard to the amendment which sought to increase the £50 million, just as important as the amount of money available for capital development — that is necessary has been agreed by all sides — is the question of what will be done with the money when it is made available.
The danger of the Taj Mahal syndrome, when you are investing in public buildings, has to be avoided. It is not always avoided. I remember when the regional technical colleges were built and anybody with a refined aesthetic sense turns green in the face when he sees them first and shades his eyes when he sees them secondly or thirdly; nevertheless they were needed at the time. They may not have been desirable as buildings but they were functional. The £50 million that will be invested should be invested in such a way that the buildings will be comfortable and functional but that the actual expenditure is looked at very closely because, with all due respects to our spokesman, the follower of Vetruvius, who is not present at the moment, architects very often have very grandiose ideas when they have public funds at their disposal and the public purse often has to pay unnecessarily because of this. Everybody would like an ideal world where all the best principles of aesthetics are applied but, in circumstances where people are working in the conditions mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan, we could even think of a national or an international competition for the most economic building for the best value for public money.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 51 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are related, so amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 19, subsection (1), line 15, to delete "£8,500,000" and substitute "£10,000,000".
Section 29 sets limits on the working capital to be made available to An Post and An Bord Telecom Éireann, namely £8.5 million and £130 million respectfully. Those limits were determined by reference to estimated and 1982 requirements. The proposed increased limits are determined by reference to estimated and end-1983 requirements. Details of the constituent and working capital and a breakdown of the total sum in each case are given. This is merely increasing the sums and allowing for the passage of time.
I take it that this is working capital. Is it true that outstanding amounts for telephone bills and so on will be absorbed in this figure? Is that what was envisaged?
Yes.
Hopefully the outstanding bills will not be higher than the amount mentioned in the actual Bill. It would be interesting to know what remedy the Minister would have if that happened. It is easy to see how the carryover for working capital can be significant so far as the telecommunications company is concerned. What kind of carryover would correspond to the postal company?
I do not understand the Deputy's question.
The Minister assured me that in section 29 (1) (b) the amount mentioned would include money owed on telephone bills and so on. Is there any part of the postal working capital available from any source and, if so, what source?
I understand the main resources will be cash in hand on vesting day which will be about £10 million.
Will it be confined to the ordinary charges for postal services? Will the savings bank not come into this?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 19, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "£130,000,000" and substitute "£150,000,000".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 19, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:—
"(2) Liabilities of the Minister and the companies under sections 81, 89 and 95 may, subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, be discharged by due account being taken of them, along with other properly reckonable amounts, in the calculation of the working capital to be made available to the companies under subsection (1).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
Will the annual report also contain the accounts for the year?
It will include the accounts for the year but subsection (2) also has a novel feature. It provides that each company will have to include in its annual report information as to the cost effectiveness of the companies' operations. The form such information will take will be decided by the Minister in consultation with the companies and with the consent of the Minister for Finance. There is also provision for a transitional period, the extent of which will be decided by the Minister, in case the companies may not be ready to supply suitable information about cost effectiveness from the outset.
Will the Comptroller and Auditor General have any role in this at all?
They will appoint their own auditors subject to the consent of the Minister.
Will the Comptroller and Auditor General not have any role to play?
The Comptroller and Auditor General will have a function in relation to the statutory interim boards but not the statutory boards.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 20, subsection (1), to delete lines 3 and 4, and substitute "elected in accordance with this section. The number to be elected at any such election shall be one-third of the number of directors provided for by the articles of association of the company for the time being.".
Section 32 with Part I of the First Schedule provides for the appointment of employee directors to fill one-third of the directorships on the board of each company. The purpose of this amendment is simply to correct a drafting defect in the present wording of subsection (1) of section 32. The wording would require one-third of all directors at all times to be employee directors but this might not be practical for good reasons, for example, the death or resignation of an employee director. It is only to take account of that.
I feel there should be an amendment to the section at the end of the Bill in relation to the number of people to be nominated. I believe that any person going forward for election should be nominated by at least ten members of the union before he becomes eligible. I am asking for an amendment to be put in to cover that. In relation to the appointment of substitute directors I believe an election like a by-election should take place in the event of any person resigning or not being available for membership of the actual boards. Not only should the union nominate somebody to the Minister for appointment but there should be an actual election among the union members.
With regard to the whole question of the worker directors that is a matter for the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act which, as I said earlier, is being reviewed by the Minister for Labour so we are just making standard provisions here.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 are related, so both amendments will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 20, subsection (5), line 24, after "thereafter." to add "Between vesting day and the election of directors under this section the Minister shall nominate as directors for each Corporation representatives of the employees.".
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister to nominate representatives of the employees between the time the companies are vested and the date on which the election of workers representatives will take place. The Bill states simply that the election should take place within 12 months. A lot of major decisions could be taken between the vesting date and the election of the employees' representatives. For that reason we feel the Minister should have this power given him to nominate directors, representatives of the employees, to each of the companies.
My amendment overtakes that of Deputy De Rossa by providing that there would be employee members of the board from vesting day, pending the elections. That is the purpose of my amendment. Therefore we will be appointing employee members in the interim until the election takes place.
Would it be the intention of the Minister to appoint directors representing all of the grades? I understand there are no representatives of the non-technical staff at present.
The method of appointing these directors would be on the nomination of the combined unions, the staff panel. We would seek nominations from the staff panel and then we would appoint them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 20, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:—
"(8) (a) The Minister shall appoint to be a director of the postal company the person who was appointed by him on the nomination of staff organisations as a member of the Interim Board for Posts (An Bord Poist), which was established by the Minister before the passing of this Act, if such person is—
(i) appointed to be a member of the Interim Postal Board under section 47, and
(ii) is a member of that Board immediately before the vesting day.
(b) The Minister shall appoint to be a director of the telecommunications company each person who was appointed by him on the nomination of staff organisations as a member of the Interim Board for Telecommunications (An Bord Telecom), which was established by the Minister before the passing of this Act, if such person is—
(i) appointed to be a member of the Interim Telecommunications Board under section 47, and
(ii) is a member of that Board immediately before the vesting day.
(c) The term of office of any director appointed under paragraph (a) or (b) shall begin on the vesting day, may be terminated by the Minister and shall, at the latest, cease on the day on which directors are appointed after elections under this section.".
Can the Minister make no further comment in relation to amendment No. 56?
We will come to the section in a minute.
But in relation to amendment No. 56.
The whole purpose is to make it clear that employee directors will be on the interim board from vesting day until the election takes place.
Would a person so nominated to the interim board be eligible to come forward for election under the terms of this Bill? In other words, would it be a requirement of the Minister that persons appointed by him to the interim board would be eligible for the permanent board under the provisions of this Bill? I know of one union represented by a member who would not be eligible under the provisions of the Bill to be a member of the full board. I want the Minister to be aware of that situation.
I am.
Because a person nominated would have to be an actual active employee or postmaster, but not an employee of the actual union. In other words, is there anything contradictory in this amendment in relation to the Bill as a whole?
I mentioned earlier some of the worker directors on either side and I did not complete the list. There are effectively three trade union directors on either side at present, apart from the postal side where sub-postmasters are represented as well. Of those three I mentioned, two are from post office unions and one is from an outside union. However, all those people will be overtaken and replaced when the election takes place for employee directors. As provided in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, that will be confined to the representatives of employees. The intention is that the present trade union directors and those nominated to serve on the board after vesting day and up to the election will be replaced by those who are successful in the election.
They could be the same persons.
Yes, but assuming they qualify for nomination——
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Amendment No. 57 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 58 is related. Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 57:
57. In page 20, subsection (1), line 36, after "meeting" to insert "of the directors".
Section 34 provides for the disclosure of certain interests by directors of An Post or Bord Telecom Éireann. These are technical amendments. They are needed in order to put it beyond doubt that it is at meetings of directors of the companies that the directors must disclose certain interests.
Regarding the restriction on disclosure of information, I presume that is not in the sense of recent disclosures at CIE regarding the closures of rail; would I be right in assuming that?
That is a different section.
That is section 35, is it?
This one deals with disclosure of interests. Therefore, if an item comes up at a board meeting, in which a member of the board or his spouse had an interest, he or she would have to so declare. It is already required under the provisions of the Bill that he or she declare that interest. But it does not make it clear that that interest should be declared at that board meeting. We are just clarifying that point.
Would it preclude him or her from being a member of the board? I made this point earlier regarding the people the Minister would appoint to the board — that they should disclose their interest before acting on the board. Not to do so could be advantageous to them regarding contracts which could be quite substantial.
On the point the Deputy has just raised, of course we would endeavour to appoint directors who would not have any vested financial or beneficial interest. Of course, that is our aim. But one cannot say at the outset that no issue will arise on which a particular director might happen to have an interest. We are endeavouring to make provision that, if that arises, he would declare that interest. We are endeavouring to clarify it further by saying that he should declare that interest at the board meeting, so that there cannot be any question of him improperly influencing a decision in his interests.
There should be a record kept of actual involvements of directors. As any member of a local authority here will know, under the Planning Act, it is a prerequisite that there is kept in the office of the local authority a record of members' assets. It is the only area in which local authority members have to disclose their assets. Members of the Dáil do not have to meet such a requirement; by the way, I believe they should. There should be a record kept of the involvement of members of the board. That may be a difficult requirement to implement but there is a good case to be made for it, taking into consideration also the point just made by Deputy O'Sullivan.
If a member is being offered membership of a board, he should be informed of the conditions attaching to his membership. Anybody with any possible vested interest should not serve on the board. Furthermore, there should be a record of all the directorships any particular individual may or may not have, also the type of business in which that person is engaged. In that way if there was any dispute at any stage regarding disclosure of information at a meeting, then at least the company would be in a position to check their records ensuring that there was no conflict of interest. It is a very important area. It will also be a difficult one to control. The majority of people appointed could have some involvement in any given area. If good quality membership of the board is required, then we should be gearing ourselves towards people who have some interest or expertise in the telecommunications or postal field. Merely informing a meeting that one has a particular interest may not be sufficient. There should be some record kept additionally. Indeed, in the offer of membership from the Minister, there should be a clear statement that the person will comply with these requirements and that legally such requirements would be enforceable.
To answer that point, the secretaries of the companies will keep a record of the business interests, or financial interests of directors.
Is that under the provisions of the Bill?
No, it does not have to be; I understand it is standard practice.
Regarding the analogy Deputy Leyden drew between members of local authorities and directors of the boards of these two companies, granted a member of a local authority will have to declare his interests, but the decision-taking is vested in the manager. I would respectfully suggest that he is not comparing like with like. Here the decision will rest with the board. The expertise will be acquired through the executive. Here we are talking about vast amounts of money, some contracts exceeding £1 million. That is a sizeable amount. Steps must be taken to ensure equal distribution of the work.
On a point of correction, a councillor would have direct control of planning in relation to the development plan in the first instance and also under the section 4 procedure. I will not elaborate on the Planning Acts because I will be ruled out of order but what I said was quite correct.
Not entirely.
The Minister and I know the situation and the Deputy is also aware of the facts.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 21, subsection (2), to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:—
"(2) Where at a meeting of the directors of either company a question arises as to whether or not a course of conduct, if pursued by a director of the company,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 59 is in the name of the Minister. There is an amendment to the amendment in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 21, before section 35, to insert the following new section:—
"35.—(1) A person shall not disclose any information obtained by him while performing duties as a director or member of staff of, or an adviser or consultant to, the postal company or the telecommunications company unless he is duly authorised to do so.
(2) A person shall not obtain any information where he is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure of such information to him would be a contravention of subsection (1).
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) In this section ‘duly authorised' means authorised by the company or by some person authorised in that behalf by the company.".
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the postal and telecommunications services against the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information about the development, maintenance or security of the nationwide networks. Similar statutory protection was given by the 1976 Gas Act. Subsection (1) prohibits the disclosure of information obtained by any person while performing duties for the companies which is not authorised by the companies or by their authorised nominee as provided in subsection (4). Subsection (2) prohibits any person from obtaining information in breach of subsection (1). Subsection (3) makes it an offence for any person to contravene either of the previous subsections. Section 4 — penalties — and section 5 — proceedings — will apply to offences committed under subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
I call on Deputy Mac Giolla to move the amendment to the amendment.
I move amendment No. 1 to the Minister's amendment:
In subsection (1), after "information", to insert "of a confidential nature".
The word "information" is exceptionally broad. It could be a case of disclosing information to the effect that the office was painted, that a colleague was getting married, that the van had broken down or something along those lines. We seek to insert the words "information of a confidential nature".
It is important to have a provision that no information shall be disclosed unless it is authorised. I am sure in normal practice information that is not confidential will be authorised. It is important that there should not be unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information.
Would that also apply to the Minister?
The Minister is all-powerful in this respect. However, it should cover Opposition Deputies.
It is part of the duty of an Opposition Deputy to ensure that the Government act in a proper manner. I hope this section will not prohibit the proper disclosure of information to an Opposition Deputy who wishes to ensure that the Minister does not take the wrong course of action.
It has nothing to do with the Minister. It does not give more protection to the Minister, only to the board.
There is nothing wrong with this section but whether it works in reality is another matter. If there is information before the board which is of vital interest to a certain union or association there will be some difficulty because it will have to be decided whether the person elected by an association or union represents the union or represents the board. This section would make it illegal for that member to disclose information to his union, his colleague or to his electorate. It would put the worker-director in a very difficult position in relation to disclosing legitimate information to his members. On the one hand we are inviting people to represent unions but in this section we are making it illegal for them to disclose any information. If a worker-director attends a branch meeting of his union, under this section he will not be allowed to disclose any information to his union, his colleagues or his electorate. In reality the provision may not be effective and I doubt if any prosecutions will take place under this section.
I can see the justification for the section in relation to the disclosure of information which would be of benefit to persons outside the board which would give them an added advantage in relation to tendering procedures and appointments, but it imposes a difficulty on the person involved. For example, a person representing sub-postmasters would be elected by the members of the union but he would not be in a position to disclose information to the annual conference or to the union executive. As such, this may not be of great assistance to the union. It imposes a limitation on the usefulness of worker-directors. I have certain reservations about the whole section. The word "information" is too broad in this context and it should be defined more precisely.
On the Deputy's point regarding a worker-director, he is there to make a contribution, with the appointed directors, to ensure the expansion of the company and its profitability in the interests of the members. I am not trying to give the Deputy a lesson in industrial relations but would point out that would be an entirely different function. Deputy Leyden's concern is directed mainly at the worker-director. However, there is also the case of the appointed people. The worker-director has a vested interest in ensuring continuity of employment and in seeing that the company remains profitable. On the other hand there are people who would have an interest in hiving off some of the activities of either company to the private sector. I see danger here not for the worker-director but for the people who would have something to gain materially from the operation.
What is information of a confidential nature? That would be very difficult to determine, but there is a very simple device which can be used. Committee sessions could be held and it could be stated on the agenda of the meetings if a matter was confidential. I would hate to think that the inclusion of this section was a reaction to a recent happening where there was disclosure of the proposed closure of certain lines.
I ask the Minister not to impose the very severe penalties proposed in section 4, although I imagine they would be very difficult to impose because it would be very difficult to say who disclosed the information. Will the directors be subject to those penalties?
These are the maximum penalties and it would be for the courts to decide what penalties, if any, should be imposed. This section is aimed at all directors, not just worker-directors. For example I could visualise a situation where the interest of the service could be compromised by the disclosure of a plan by An Bord Telecom to get into satellites. It is only right that if a person makes a disclosure of this nature to an international competitor he should be penalised.
It is also important that directors be protected because at present there is a danger that not all information is given to boards. I am disposed to the view that many State boards are circumvented because of a reluctance by management to give them confidential information. That is a very serious situation because the boards are responsible to the Minister and the Minister is responsible to the Government. This section will ensure that boards get the necessary information and it will protect directors from unfair pressure to disclose information.
Everyone agrees there is a need to restrict information coming from the board and staff in this and almost every company, particularly in the commercial area. There are thousands of staff employed in depots all over the county. This section says "any information"; we are not just talking about confidential information. We should say exactly what we mean by using the phrase "confidential information" or "information of a confidential nature". Section 4 explains what "duly authorised" means. As the section stands no person can give any information about the work of the Post Office unless he is duly authorised. Why have a section about authorisation of information when we should be restricting the area to cover confidential information? If a person is looking for general information he should not have to approach an authorised person.
I ask the Minister to look at the section again and insert the words "information of a confidential nature" to avoid possible niggling by managers, foremen or any other person. If he accepts the phrase it would avoid unnecessary hassle.
I take the point made by Deputy Mac Giolla and will look at it before Report Stage.
I support the point made by Deputy Mac Giolla because this is a very dangerous provision. I particularly object to subsection (2) which says that a person shall not obtain any information where he is aware, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the disclosure of such information to him would be in contravention of subsection (1). This subsection should be deleted because it is a restriction on the freedom of journalists. When this Bill becomes law a journalist would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get any information which might be of interest to his readers. I strongly advocate that the word "confidential" be included and that subsection (2) be deleted because it undermines the freedom of democracy.
As Opposition spokesman for Posts and Telegraphs I would have great difficulty carrying out my duties if I could not discuss with members of the board or employees of the company any difficulties they are experiencing, such as conditions, development and so on. I will have to decide if the information given comes under section 35 (1). It is difficult enough to do one's work as a Deputy without also having to worry if the information at one's disposal will contravene this legislation. Most Opposition Deputies would oppose this section. The Minister may be occupying these benches very soon and he may find it very difficult to carry out his responsibilities if this subsection is passed.
I have in my possession information which under the terms of this Bill would be deemed to be illegal, but at the moment it is not. At present I am entitled to be informed of developments and I receive a large volume of correspondence dealing with the Minister's Department. This company will employ thousands of people and every member will be governed by this Bill. If a reporter from the media tries to interview an employee working for the Department he may never get that interview, because if he did the employee would have contravened this section. The unions should fight this issue. I ask the Labour Party to exert the maximum pressure on the Minister to delete the word "any" and insert "confidential information" and also delete subsection (2) because it restricts freedom and clamps down on information legitimately required and needed in a democracy.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.