I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Private Members' Business. - Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second and Subsequent Stages.
On a point of order, why is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs not here on this very important occasion?
That is not a point of order.
I am sorry. I see that he is arriving.
It is an indication of the Deputy's ignorance of ministerial responsibility in measures such as this.
The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the merger of the Department of Transport and the residual Department of Posts and Telegraphs in a new Department of Communications.
Deputies will be aware that after the vesting date of An Bord Poist and of An Bord Telecom only a certain number of residual functions will be left with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is these functions which it is proposed to amalgamate with those of the Minister for Transport in a new Department of Communications.
I should point out to the House that the Taoiseach announced the Government's intention of establishing this new Department when he made a formal statement in Dáil Éireann on 27 October last. Deputies will of course remember that on 11 December 1979 the then newly-elected Taoiseach also signalled his intention of creating such a Department. This merging of existing departmental functions in a single new Department underlines the importance of communications. It likewise emphasises in a practical way the rational co-ordination under the aegis of one Department of all those functions relating to communications. This of course has been also highlighted in recent years by the very fact that in all Governments since 1979 the Transport and Posts and Telegraphs portfolios have been held by the same Ministers.
The residual functions of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs relate to the particular and specific areas covered by the various Telegraph Acts, the Telecommunications Capital Acts, 1924-1981, the Betting Act of 1931 and the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983.
They include also the functions provided for under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, 1926 to 1972, and the Broadcasting Acts, 1960 to 1979.
The Bill contains provision for all the normal, technical and consequential changes arising out of the abolition of two Departments and the creation of a single new Department in their place.
The Bill provides, for example, for the continuing legal validity of all outstanding contracts, bonds and securities, following the abolition of the Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and likewise with the Department of Transport.
Section 13 of the Bill will enable the new Minister for Communications to spend and account for the moneys which under the procedures of the House have to be provided in the name of the Ministers for Transport and Posts and Telegraphs.
In effect this section ensures that four-fifths of the sums appropriated in respect of the Departments of Transport and of Posts and Telegraphs in the financial year 1983 may be issued to and spent and accounted for by the Minister for Communications during 1984. Thus on the day that the Office of the Minister for Communications is created it can spend moneys provided for the two abolished Departments up until an Estimate for Communications is formally put through the House.
I commend this Bill to the House.
I suggest we are a bit pedestrian in regard to our welcome for the new Department. Seeing that there is a festive air developing, despite various traumata on the Government side, it might have been appropriate if the Minister had some bottles of champagne to launch the new Department. It is some time since a new Department was launched — it may have been the Department of the Public Service or the Department of Labour — and I thought there might have been an invitation to such a celebration for the birth of the new Department. It is interesting to reflect on the reason for the new Department. My colleague, Deputy Leyden, considers it inappropriate that the Minister for the Public Service is not present but I understand the reason for his absence is that he was ill recently. In another way it is quasi appropriate that the Minister for Defence should be introducing the Bill because I am aware that he made a gallant effort between June 1981 and January 1982 to get a Bill dealing with posts and telecommunications on the agenda for the Dáil. I am aware that he did not have the co-operation of his colleagues in Government in his efforts. For that reason I am sure he is pleased that Fianna Fáil during their brief period in office succeeded in having all the financial provisions of the Bill settled in a generous fashion and got the Second Stage through the House. The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Mitchell, finished the Committee and remaining Stage of the Bill. I would like to think that the Minister for Defence, having looked at the trauma of 1981 and 1982, will be pleased that this has been brought to a successful conclusion.
I am aware that the Departments of Finance and Posts and Telegraphs were asked to jointly prepare the financial provisions of that Bill, of which this legislation is a consequence, and that towards the end of August the Department of Finance, in their usual helpful way, decided to dissolve that committee which meant that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to bring forward a scheme. That scheme was presented to the Department of Finance but the then Minister, who has my sympathy, could not make any progress with that Department. The Taoiseach took an interest in the matter and arranged a meeting for early January 1982 but Deputy John Bruton, now Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, who was then Minister for Finance, had already taken a hard-nosed decision in regard to the budget with the result that Deputy Cooney was frustrated in his efforts. Since then a lot of water has flowed under many bridges and we now have An Post and An Bord Telecom set to commence operations on 1 January 1984. The provisions of the Bill before us will come into operation on the following day.
It is well to reflect on what is left for the new Department. It will consist of the total Department of Transport that now exists and will have the residual section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I understand about 100 civil servants will be involved in the change into the new Department and that the section dealing with RTE will continue under a principal officer to act as it has been. I understand that there will be a similar section of the new Department, headed by a principal officer, to deal with An Post and another to deal with An Bord Telecom. Three principal officers will deal with RTE, An Post and An Bord Telecom and a fourth principal officer will deal with the general running of the new Department.
I should like to mention some of the functions that will be performed by the residual Department. There will not be any great difficulty about the RTE section because there will not be any change in that regard. An Post, An Bord Telecom and their related sections in the new Department will have to work out their own arrangements over the years and learn from their experience. I gather that the functions of the residual Department will be the setting of policy and performance standards in regard to the quality of services and monitoring the results of that. Of course, financial targets will have to be settled and a pricing policy set. Licences for installation and maintenance of international services will be the responsibility of An Bord Telecom. There will also be the question of issuing licences to contractors for installing equipment in subscribers' premises. There is also a provision for the erection of worker representatives to the boards. The important international area has to be catered for such as the International Telecommunications Union, the Universal Postal Union and their subsidiaries.
The House will recall that attention was given to user councils when the Bill was going through the House and, again, the residue of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, now in the new Department, will deal with such councils and consumer protection. There will also be work to be done in regard to the annual estimates for the boards and capital provision. They will be the executive of Government policy in regard to pay and prices. The House will also recall that there was provision for the two new companies, An Post and An Bord Telecom, to produce rolling five-year plans covering service and financial targets. They have to be discussed and, I presume, modified by agreement between them.
The transitional period will carry problems for the people involved in the new Department of Communications, and I am sure there will be general understanding of the difficulties so involved. I know that the representative authorities of the two bodies are determined that the new Department will be effective, that there will be much new emphasis on marketing efficiency and the provision of a proper service for the customers. During negotiations with them in my time in office I became convinced that they will bring a fresh approach to both the postal and telecommunications services.
The emphasis on marketing will be revealing: how can An Post be utilised to improve the service and to bring profitability? No doubt the residual sections of the new Department will inform the House on developments there.
The Minister's speech was surprisingly short. In my opinion it hardly reflected the excitement of launching a new Department on which many people have been pinning their hopes. The speech did not touch on the relationships between the Department of Transport and the newcomer. I know this is a purely legal aspect, but the Minister did not explain how the new sections will be fused and accommodated, how the Secretaries of the two Departments involved will relate to each other either in the matter of promotions or the holding of rank. Will there be two Secretaries holding the office of Secretary of the Department of Communications? It will be easy to manage the Assistant and Deputy Secretary status. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us?
As the Minister has said, the technicalities relating to the new Department are dealt with in detail in the Bill. The obligations, financial and otherwise, residing in Posts and Telegraphs and Transport will be passed on to the new Department together with contractual obligations and so forth, and there will not be any legal loopholes as far as the transfer is concerned.
Deputy Leyden will have some more detailed remarks to make on the postal side of the venture. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs have been constituted in the country since we got our independence and it would be appropriate to pay a tribute to the long line of distinguished people who served that Department during the years, not merely for their input in the work of the Department but their involvement in culture and research which resulted in additional credit to the country.
The Department of Transport is a comparative youngster and has a reputation for efficiency. So have many other Departments, but that Department more than others. I have no doubt that the high standard of dedication and efficiency of the officials will be maintained in the new Department.
I welcome the Bill as being the logical consequence of the hard work put in by the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in particular. I do not want to name any of the officers, particularly some who bore very heavy burdens. Some have retired in the meantime and I pay them a particular tribute, anonymously according to the traditions of the House.
The Bill is an earnest of hope for an exciting future. The children of the new Department have expressed their hopes for the future and we hope that the vision, the dream, will be realised because there is no doubt about the dedication of the chairman and the respective executives already appointed.
The launching of a new Department on the demise of two others does not frequently occur so this is a rare occasion for the House. Since the foundation of the State, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have given excellent service. My association with it goes back to the time when the late P.J. Little was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the early forties. I had to make frequent representations to him and I want to put on record my appreciation of the staff, from the postmasters down to the postmen, senior officials and a variety of Ministers, some rather dull, some exciting, but all possessing dedication and efficiency.
I wish to raise one matter in particular. I assume that when the Department of Communications is established it will have a permanent Secretary. I hope and trust that no Deputy will be denied the right of access to the civil service heads of Departments. There are only two Departments in which Deputies have been denied this right; one is the existing Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the other is the Department of Education. This is an impertinent restriction on the rights of Deputies. It is very strange that the ordinary citizen has a right to communicate with the civil service head of a Department but Members of this House are denied that right. As soon as the new Department is established under this Bill I hope that the rights and privileges of Members of this House will be speedily restored.
I would like to ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Transport what is the motive behind this. Now is the time to raise the matter in relation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Will this embargo persist in the new Department of Communications? I have known the civil service heads of most Departments for the past 40 years, men of the highest integrity, men dedicated to the service of the country. They gave and give loyal service to every Government and they respected every Member of this House. Any ukase on correspondence from Deputies to Departments of State is wrong. It should not be tolerated and Deputies will be failing in their duty if they do not stand up for their rights. Surely every Member of this House has the right to communicate with the civil service heads of Departments.
From the civil service heads of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs over the years I have never received anything but the greatest courtesy and an excellent standard of efficiency and competence. No matter what might be said about the Irish civil service we have as high a quality civil servant as any other democracy in the western world. Is it not somewhat extraordinary that Members of Parliament are debarred from seeking the assistance of the civil service heads of Departments? I want to be assured by the Minister that there will be no interference with the rights of Deputies and particularly with the rights of Deputies who have served as Cabinet Ministers. Why should a former Cabinet Minister be denied the right to make representations? Why should an instruction be given that no correspondence should be entered into with Deputies and that any correspondence that had to be entered into should issue from the Minister's office? That is wrong. It is dangerous.
The Civil Service heads of Departments are not concerned with politics. They are concerned with getting the work done with speed and efficiency, with courtesy and kindness. I know the prohibition in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was an acute embarrassment. It was a Department from which I always received the greatest courtesy. I wrote to the Taoiseach about this but I am sorry to say I did not even get an acknowledgment. The ordinary citizen has the right to communicate with the Civil Service head of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, to get a courteous reply, but a Member of this House, a former Cabinet Minister, has not that right. Why was that right taken away? I take it it has been taken away from every Deputy. It is very wrong and such a state of affairs should not be tolerated. We could always rely implicitly on the Civil Service heads of Departments.
I hope the new Department will be an unqualified success. I hope the two boards will do a successful job. The public expect a good service. What was good enough in the twenties and following decades is not good enough today. Under the new system I hope some effort will be made to deal with telephone bills. Deputies are demented and I hope the new Department or some responsible body will deal with the problems that exist. When the Minister comes to reply I hope he will assure us that we have the right to make representations direct to the new Department and to the boards. I hope we will not be by-passed. I am sorry I have had to raise this matter but I have been waiting a long time for a suitable opportunity. I shall raise it in relation to the Department of Education when that Estimate comes before the House.
The Civil Service heads of Departments down through the years have served the country and the people well. They have performed their duties with the highest standard of efficiency. To the present Civil Service head of the Department I say that he is doing an excellent job but I am sorry that the good relationship that existed between Members of this House and the Department was cut short by the intervention of a Minister acting unjustly and unfairly and, in my opinion, extremely dangerously. It is a dangerous practice to interfere with rights, particularly the rights of former Ministers. I hope that in future we shall have the right to correspond directly and that we will receive the same standard of efficiency and courtesy we always received in the past. I hope there will be an end to ministerial intervention. I find it difficult to understand why any Minister should make an order that he was to examine my representations.
For over 40 years I have been communicating directly with Civil Service heads. As a former Minister I am familiar with all the tricks of the trade. When I was in the Department of Defence I did not want to see every file. I did not want to send replies. I did not want to have anything to do with correspondence addressed to the Civil Service head of the Department. Citizens have their rights. I did not interfere with them. Members of Dáil Éireann are entitled to the same rights and from 1 January I hope Members of this House, particularly former Ministers, will have their rights restored. This Christmas will be my 41st Christmas as a Member of this House and never in all those years until now have my rights ever been interfered with. They have been interfered with by only two Departments, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Education. Any Member who wants to correspond with these Departments has a right to do so. There must be some motive behind all this. Why should two Departments adopt this practice? I shall deal with the Department of Education at a later date. When the new Department is established I ask that the rights of Deputies to communicate with the Civil Service head of that Department be restored forthwith.
I wish Deputy Oliver Flanagan a very happy 41st Christmas in the Dáil. It is an unusual record. He is a great example to newer Deputies for the contributions he constantly makes here. I want to ask the Minister why there was not an explanatory leaflet issued with this Bill. I understand the Minister for Defence is standing in for the Minister for the Public Service. I was not aware that the Minister for the Public Service was ill, because if he is I would not ask the Minister why he is standing in for him. If he is ill I wish him a speedy recovery to good health. I expect the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will be replying to the debate, and it will give him an opportunity to clarify some situations which may arise in the future in the new Department.
I welcome the setting up of the Department of Communications which combines the residual Department of Posts and Telegraphs with the Department of Transport. I had the honour of serving as Minister of State with my colleague Deputy John Wilson as Minister for Transport and for Posts and Telegraphs. I want to take this opportunity to compliment the fine staff who worked in both those Departments. I believe that when they are combined together in the new Department of Communications we will have some of the most experienced personnel joining the new Department.
The point made by my colleague Deputy Wilson is a very relevant one in relation to the position regarding the secretaries of both Departments. At the moment there is an independent secretary of the Department of Transport, Mr. MacMahon, and then there is the secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Kelly. I would like the Minister to clarify exactly which of those will become the official secretary of the new Department of Communications and the general effect this will have on the existing staff at that particular level.
The major change has come about as a result of the setting up of the two new boards, An Post and An Bord Telecom, which will take over the main work of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs from 1 January 1984. During the year when we had the discussion on the Bill setting up both boards I had the privilege, on behalf of my party, of contributing to the debate. It will be an historic occasion on 1 January next when both boards take over the full responsibility for running the postal and telecommunications side of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We are fortunate in having as the chief executive of both of those boards very experienced men who have had, over the last few years, an opportunity to study their particular briefs. They are coming into their particular tasks with great experience because of their involvement in the Department over the years since they were first appointed as acting chief executives of the existing boards. Both men have behind them boards with great experience built up in the postal and telecommunications side. I believe that both boards will contribute greatly to the running of the postal and telecommunications side of the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
I must place on record the contribution made by Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs over the years. The present Minister and the previous Ministers, Deputy Wilson, Deputy Cooney, Deputy Reynolds and other Ministers before them have had a great record over the years. We all have a certain nostalgia in seeing the demise of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the oldest Department in the State, which has been in existence since before the State was set up. The quality of the personnel and the quality of the service must be admired. The postal service is certainly the best in the world and the telecommunications side will come into its own in 1984.
I want to refer to what Deputy Flanagan said in relation to the telephone accounts. There is serious disquiet in relation to those accounts. I believe the Minister should in the few weeks he has at his disposal give particular attention to this area and lay down a policy directive to An Bord Telecom to carry out a detailed examination of the many complaints in relation to bills. There are between 40,000 to 100,000 queries concerning telephone accounts which leave the Department short of £23.5 million. That is quite a lot of money. All the people cannot be wrong. I know there are some complaints which are not justified but my experience, in dealing with a number of complaints from my constituency and throughout the country as spokesman for my party for Posts and Telegraphs when I have received a number of complaints from different parts of the country, is that there is something seriously wrong with the system. The only way we can satisfy consumers ultimately is to give them detailed accounts of all the phone calls they make. I know this will come about because of the digital service we have installed. I believe this should be seriously considered on a trial period to allay the fears of the public generally in relation to telephone accounts.
I am very much in favour of having the accounts issued every two months or preferably every month. If people get their accounts every month they will be more aware of the rising cost of telephone calls and they will be more cautious in using the phone except for necessary communications. The conversion of the manual exchanges and the provision of totally automatic services is well on stream. This policy was initiated under a Fianna Fáil Government.
It is a particularly dramatic experience for the staff who will be made redundant. Some of the staff have already been made redundant. I have received representations from many personnel of the existing manual exchanges who are particularly concerned about their position in the new year. The Minister should, on every occasion possible, allay the fears of the staff who have been so loyal to the service over the years. Those people have worked under extremely difficult circumstances. Many of the exchanges have had to work long hours with totally inadequate equipment. People will be made redundant because they are not in a position to transfer to existing services. The Minister under sections 44 and 45 of the Act setting up the board should specify clearly that the position of those people is guaranteed as far as redundancy offers are concerned, that the present negotiated redundancies will be honoured by the incoming boards. I do not believe the Minister can say this too often to allay the fears of the staff involved.
I had a Parliamentary Question down on 26 October to have the position clarified. The Minister will have the responsibility of ensuring that the provisions of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill 1982 will be honoured to the very letter. During recent weeks I have been asking the Minister to lay before the House the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme relating to postmasters. I understand the Cabinet made a decision last Friday accepting the actual recommendations of the scheme. As the Minister is well aware, there are 2,000 postmasters of sub-post offices throughout the State. They agreed roughly two years ago to enter into negotiations with the Department and an arbitration group was set up to investigate the pay and conditions of postmasters of sub-post offices. The recommendations were before the Government who, I understand, have accepted them.
In reply to me on Question No. 359 on 29 November 1983 the Minister stated, and I quote from the Official Report, column 467, Volume 346:
The report has been received. In accordance with the provisions of the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for postmasters, the report will be presented to the Dáil, signifying the Government's intention in relation to the recommendations. This will be done as soon as possible.
Time is running out, and with the passage of this Bill, the setting up of both boards and the vesting date of 1 January, the pay and conditions relating to postmasters will not be the responsibility of the Minister. I ask him to make a statement to the House signifying his intentions in relation to the scheme of conciliation and arbitration.
I will not have an opportunity of replying to the Minister, but I hope that within the recommendations will be a rent allowance for premises for the postmasters. The Minister is well aware that the postmasters provide their own premises, heat them, light them and pay rates, water and all other charges for those premises. In many locations the cost of providing full service by the postmaster is prohibitive, and unless they are given an adequate sum for the upkeep of their premises it will be very difficult for many postmasters to carry on. I hope that the Minister in his agreement on conciliation and arbitration will not only give a major percentage increase to the postmasters but will give also other facilities and increases to cover the prohibitive cost of running their premises. I would like to say now, when the postmasters are transferring to the new board, that they have provided and will provide one of the finest services in the Department because of their detailed knowledge of the public in the area, and their contribution to the Department must always be recognised. They have provided communications for the people direct to the Department. The workload of the postmasters in sub-post offices should be expanded, because they are in a position to provide far more services than they are allowed to provide at the moment. Sub-post offices provide Government representation in every parish throughout the State. They are a tremendous network of offices linked to the main Post Office. The Government and the new board will have an outlet at every location and through those locations far more work can be stimulated and organised. I refer particularly to the expansion of the post office savings side of the Department, which must be given great priority because it has such great access and availability for the people. I hope the Minister will announce the details of this scheme in the House and that the postmasters will be aware of their position before this Bill is passed by 10 o'clock tonight and before the vesting date of 1 January 1984.
The new Department of Communications will have satellite broadcasting as one of their main responsibilities. In that area it would be appropriate for the Minister to come before the Dáil and announce details of his proposals for satellite television broadcasting. He is aware that we have been allocated a spot in the sky for our own satellite. We have been allocated five stations and I understand that the Minister has sought tenders from four Irish companies and 11 companies outside the State. One of the companies already named is RTE and the other is An Bord Telecom. I would like the Minister to name the other companies involved. It would be appropriate that the Minister would advertise publicly to allow other interested parties to submit tenders to the Department in relation to this very lucrative area, a futuristic development which could give great opportunities to many companies. It has been said that to have franchise for provision of satellite television is like having an oil well.
The Minister may also wish to express his views on the possible postponement of the programme in Britain. The BBC have decided to postpone the implementation of an earlier decision to provide satellite television early in the next few years. That may represent a great opportunity for us here to be ahead of other countries in Europe and provide that satellite at the earliest possible opportunity. However, we must be very careful first of all to see that Irish industry will be given an opportunity to tender for this satellite and that we will have control of the production and provision of material for one if not more of those stations. It will give a great opportunity to RTE to utilise a large portion of their staff in the provision of programmes, and of using their facilities at Montrose — which are partly unfinished — to provide services for satellite television. I request the Minister to give the House an opportunity in the New Year in the next session of the Dáil to debate the involvement of satellite television and its effect in relation to communication here. It presents great opportunities but it could create great problems of censorship and so on. The Minister owes it to the Dáil to come before the House and let us know exactly where he stands in relation to satellite television.
I wish to make a point of order, reluctantly and only in the context that the time for this debate is fixed. While what Deputy Leyden is saying is interesting and could peripherally be related to the Bill, I submit that it has nothing to do with the real purpose of the Bill.
I accept that, but I think I am OK on time.
The Minister must speak at 10 p.m.
I remind the Deputy that he has wandered from the Bill.
I do not agree, because we are dealing with the Department of Communications. Surely satellite communications will be very relevant to the new Department. I do not think I am straying from the main purpose of the Bill. However, in two minutes I will sum up the position. It gives me an opportunity to request the Minister to outline some of the opportunities and problems which will arise in the not too distant future.
This is an historic occasion. I do not consider the introductory speech of the Minister acting on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service was adequate to mark the occasion. The setting up of a new Department is a major step towards a very welcome development. I note the departure of the Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Donnellan. I wish him well in his new Department and I must express satisfaction at the way he carried out his responsibilities in that Department over the last 12 months. I regret that he has been moved to another Department.
The Minister should give great priority to bringing before the Dáil the necessary local radio Bills. This matter is pressing. Also I compliment the Minister on acting very quickly on the request I made last week in relation to illegal television transmissions which commenced some weeks ago. It was the proper action to take and I commend him for taking it so speedily. I strongly recommended it and I am delighted the Minister acted in that way.
On behalf of my party I should like to express our hopes for success for the new Department of Communications. I should like to thank the outgoing officers of the Department of Transport and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the staff who will be transferred on 1 January 1984. I wish them every success. I know they will have exciting times ahead. From my experience of dealing with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Transport I know they have some of the finest personnel who could be found in any Department. They are men of the highest integrity and ability. I know the new Department will be a great success, as will An Bord Telecom and An Post.
I am grateful to the Opposition speakers for their comments in relation to the Bill before us and also the main Bill dealing with postal telecommunications. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Defence, acting for the Minister for the Public Service, will deal with those matters when he replies to the debate. I am happy to see my colleague, Deputy Oliver Flanagan, present — given the historic nature of the Bill. He is the most senior Member of the House and, as he said himself, he has seen many Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs and all Ministers for Transport in the past 40 years. Deputy Flanagan is known for his public adherence to Christian principles and I think it only fair that I should deal with him with regard to the matter he raised in a spirit of charity. The Deputy spoke to me on almost every day the Dáil sat but never once did he raise with me the question he raised publicly in the House. I can only ask why he felt it necessary to raise the question publicly.
I wrote to the Minister and to the Taoiseach but it did not get me any place. I had a courteous letter from the Secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
The Deputy said he wrote to me but I did not receive any letter. He certainly never raised the matter with me.
Another split in the party?
The Deputy said that in two Departments the Secretaries did not deal with his correspondence: he mentioned the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Education. As the Deputy knows, I am also Minister for Transport but apparently what he said does not apply to that Department. It might lead him to ask the reason for that. This arrangement was introduced on my directions in the past two months because of the transitional arrangements that are now in train and because representations from Deputies will no longer be dealt with by the Department after 1 January. It was done because we are handing over to semi-State bodies and because the Secretary of my Department has been more than occupied in dealing with the transition in a most skilful and brilliant way, together with some other officials. The Minister of State was occupied almost entirely in dealing with representations but as those representations will no longer be dealt with by the Department he has been transferred to another Department. That is the simple explanation for the change in arrangements.
The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is the senior Department in the State because it is the oldest. In 1984 it will celebrate its bicentenary. It was formed in 1784 and it has been presided over by a series of Postmasters General. In the 1920s the title was changed to Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Still in this House I have counted six former Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs. They are Deputies Neil Blaney, Gerry Collins, John Wilson, Pádraig Faulkner, Pat Cooney and Albert Reynolds. It is appropriate that two of those Members, Deputy Pat Cooney, who is the present Minister for Defence, and Deputy John Wilson, who was my predecessor, are present for the debate. There have also been other distinguished holders of the office including the late President Erskine Childers, Oscar Traynor, Michael Hilliard, Jim Everett and Conor Cruise-O'Brien.
The Department of Transport is 24 years old and it has had a distinguished history. It has made a significant contribution to the welfare of the State. There are eight former Ministers of that Department in the House at the moment. I refer to Deputies Brian Lenihan, Michael O'Kennedy, Albert Reynolds, Pádraig Faulkner, Pat Cooney, John Wilson, Peter Barry and Tom Fitzpatrick. The late George Colley was Minister for a brief period of six weeks and Erskine Childers was the first Minister for Transport. It is an interesting point that he spent more time in the Department of Transport — ten years — than almost all his successors. We have had a rather rapid change of Ministers for Transport.
I think it would be appropriate if the Minister acknowledged the services of Miss Beere.
I will deal with that. The Department of Transport has the distinction of having had the only lady departmental secretary — I refer to Dr. Thekla Beere who happily, is still alive. There is another Secretary of the Department who has retired, Mr. Seán Ó Ríordáin.
In the case of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs four former Secretaries are alive, some of them being very notable persons. They are Mr. Leon Ó Broin, Mr. Joseph Scannell, Mr. Proinsias Ó Colmáin and Mr. Liam Ó Réagáin. It is right that the names of former Ministers and former Secretaries should be mentioned because they have guided the two Departments in dealing with important matters. Now both Departments will merge into the new Department of Communications. It should not be seen as an end although inevitably, as Deputies opposite have said, there will be a certain feeling of nostalgia at the passing of the Departments especially one that is 200 years old. I regard it as a new beginning. The merging of the two Departments was recommended as far back as 1969 in the Devlin Report. It has taken 15 years to effect the merger although we must acknowledge that both Departments have been run in tandem with the same Minister acting for both of them for the past six years.
Deputies opposite asked about the Secretaries of Departments. The position is that both Secretaries will remain. Mr. Noel MacMahon will be Secretary of the Department and Mr. Seán Ó Ceallaigh will be Second Secretary of the Department.
There are quite a number of other points raised by Deputies in relation mainly to items which would be more appropriate to a debate on the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs. However, there was an important point raised by Deputy Leyden, the question of the sub-postmasters' arbitration award and I can tell the Deputy that that will be laid before the House tomorrow as it has been approved by the Government.
This merger has taken a great deal of work. It started with the Dargan Committee, which was set up under Deputy Faulkner's Ministry and, following their report, the then Government decided to proceed with the re-organisation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs into two semi-State bodies. Two boards were appointed by Deputy Faulkner and I am glad to say that those boards are more or less intact and will be continued into the permanent boards. No changes were made by me except that the boards, as required by legislation, were increased by three and three new names were added to each board. It speaks for itself that the appointments made have survived a number of Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs. They are two excellent boards and it is right that we should record here our very special thanks to them for the work they have done in preparing for this takeover and also to thank the members of the Dargan Committee.
Most importantly, credit must go to the Secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Ó Ceallaigh, and the Deputy Secretary, Miss Ita Meehan, the most senior lady civil servant in the State and who, sadly, is retiring next week. I also want to thank Mr. Jimmy Joyce, Assistant Secretary in charge of reorganisation, and the reorganisation unit who have done a fantastic job with great skill and dedication in managing this transition and made it much easier for me to handle. Their work is now bearing fruit and I cannot praise them too highly for their dedication and skill in preparing the legislation, the consultations with regard to the legislation and all the other different phases right up to the negotiations after the legislation was passed. They dealt with the very many items involved in transferring half of the Civil Service to these new boards. I want to thank them and I wish them and the other members of the two Departments every happiness and success in the future. I know they will continue to serve the State as well as they have always done and in accordance with the traditions of their present Departments.
It is unfortunate that there is a fixed time for this debate because there is very little time for me to reply to some of the points raised by Deputies. I sympathise with Deputy Wilson's sense of anti-climax regarding the script with which I introduced this measure but he, Deputy Mitchell, Deputy Leyden and I might perhaps have a particular insight into the magnitude of what this Bill encompasses in terms of the huge changes made in the public service. Perhaps, from our point of view the matter might seem somewhat anti-climatic at this stage. This legislation is the final stage in the process which started in 1979 and it is essentially a technical measure to complete that process by setting up the new Department.
Deputy Wilson speculated that the Department of the Public Service was the last new Department to be established and he made that point in the context of the lack of celebration, so to speak, surrounding this one. However, his memory does not do him justice——
I thought I said it was the Department of Labour.
——because the last one to be set up was the Department of Economic Planning and Development. Perhaps we are wise not to have celebrations on this occasion——
I had a glass of champagne on that occasion.
I can modestly guess that the future of the new Department of Communications will be longer, healthier and undisturbed compared with the last new Department. There is a nice piece of political history encompassed in the recollection of the setting up of the Department of Economic Planning and Development. I have no doubt that if the present incumbent, the departing incumbent and the future incumbent on my left wish to invite any of their predecessors to indulge in the beverage to which Deputy Wilson referred, we would be prepared to enjoy it.
The cold, clammy hand of the Department of Finance may put a stop to that.
As I said, it is a technical measure to set up the new Department. It is the culmination of a process which has been the subject of much debate, both inside and outside the House. I do not make any apology for not rehashing the entire matter in my opening speech because it would have been tiresome, repetitive and putting on the record what is already there in great detail on numerous occasions when we debated White Papers, discussion documents and the Bill.
I was privileged, as Deputy Wilson reminded me, to have been a participant in the genesis of the new boards but I am afraid his remarks about my suffering frustration from the then Minister for Finance are not accurate.
They are accurate.
In spite of his years in the public service and serving as Minister, his insight into the ways of government and administration are not as perceptive or acute as I would have expected from a man of his ability, breadth of wind and stature.
The Minister was hammered. What about the meeting in January 1982?
It is quite clear that he did not fully comprehend the complex financial arrangements that had to be made, involving huge sums of money, in order to ensure that the capital structure and financial arrangements for the new boards would be equitable as between the boards and the Exchequer from which they were departing, ultimately in the taxpayers' interest. Those discussions had to be conducted at some length and were finally incorporated in the legislation which was brought forward by Deputy Wilson on the ground work which I, as his immediate predecessor, had successfully carried out.
The arrangements covering the staff in the new Department will be worked out by the Department in consultation with the staff associations in accordance with normal practice. I have no doubt that the smooth transitional arrangements which have been taking place over a number of months will be continued to the final stage of staffing arrangements in the new Department.
There was no explanatory leaflet issued with the Bill, as mentioned by Deputy Leyden. The Bill is very short and the self-explanatory memorandum which normally accompanies a new Bill would be unnecessary. The winding up of the Department, which was responsible for the oldest public utility in the State, is an historic occasion and perhaps there will be some regret at the change. However, we must be excited at the prospect of change and I anticipate that the challenge and the opportunity that the new boards will present to those forming and taking part in them will be met in such a way that the services to which we have been accustomed for so long will continue to be provided in a far more efficient and profitable way for the State. I congratulate and thank all those involved in the past work of the Department and I join with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Transport in wishing all who will serve on the new bodies every happiness under the new regime.
Question, "That the Bill is hereby read a Second Time, is hereby agreed to in Committee, is reported to the House and passed" put and agreed to.