I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1), line 19, to delete "by the Minister".
Postal and Telecommunications Services (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I believe there is something faulty in this Bill and I am bringing it to attention at this stage because I believe amendment No. 7 seriously changes the whole purpose of the Bill. In fact it changes the Title of the Bill. There is something defective in the Bill and I should like to have some reason why these words are being inserted in the Title. It changes the whole concept of the Bill. A technical Bill has now become more than a technical Bill.
I have called section 2, amendment No. 1, in the name of the Minister. That is all there is before the House at the moment.
I think the Chair should read amendment No. 7 before he rules on this because I believe the insertion of this amendment so changes the Bill as to render it imperative for us to reconsider our approach.
It is not a matter for the Chair to make judgments on this. I have called section 2 and I have called amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister. That may be debated and disposed of in the ordinary way. I shall then put section 2 and so on.
I would ask the Chair to read the amendment because the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill and the Bill itself have been seriously changed. The whole Title has been changed by the amendment to the Title. I appreciate the Title comes at the very end but it has been changed to such an extent that it seriously changes the Bill itself.
That is covered by the motion the House has just passed.
I did warn you, a Cheann Comhairle——
The Deputy asked me and I said the point in the motion was to allow amendment No. 6 to be dealt with which otherwise would not be in order. Amendment No. 7 is consequential on that. Amendment No. 6 may be either accepted or rejected when we come to it. We are dealing with amendment No. 1 at the moment.
There has been a revision of the original Bill and I am wondering why problems arose in the first instance. I have no objection to this amendment but I recall there was an amendment to an amendment in the original Bill which was passed in 1983. We have now a new Bill in the last fortnight and we have a still further amendment to the amended Bill. To me this is extraordinary, to say the least. When we were getting this technical Bill I did not expect the Minister would come before the House with amendments to an amending Bill. It is extraordinary that the Minister's advisers did not produce a Bill that had been well studied and worked out. The amendment put forward by the Minister is an amendment to an amending Bill.
Does the Deputy agree with amendment No. 1?
Yes, but I am making the point that what has happened is extraordinary.
We will have the opportunity to discuss it later on section 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 4, after "day" to insert "or immediately before the passing of this Act".
This is needed because of the passing of time. It covers court proceedings that have arisen since 1 January 1984 and which are pending. The section as it stands covers only court proceedings pending to 1 January.
Will the Minister of State given an indication of the number of court cases pending and which have been affected by this section?
I understand the total amount involved is £1.3 million.
Has this money been held up pending the passing of this legislation?
A number of settlements have been made. That is why we are anxious to get the legislation through.
Will the Minister clarify the situation regarding claims by the Department against individuals? What is the position where, for instance, an individual may have collided with a telephone kiosk? Unfortunately there have been a few such examples in my constituency where people have been involved in skids and so on. Cases are pending against the individuals involved. Will the section deal with those people?
It will cover such cases.
I urge the Minister not to proceed against the people but to talk to them and try to make some settlement with them. Because of this section have the cases been held up?
Yes, concerning both actions taken by the Department and actions taken against the Department. However, I would point out that it is now Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are consequential: amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, lines 11 to 18, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Where judgment is given against either company in any proceedings in pursuance of a claim to which section 2 (1) relates or in proceedings continued under section 3 and the person in whose favour the judgment is given has been unable to enforce the judgment, in whole or in part, against the company, he shall be entitled to enter judgment against the Minister for Finance in any court of competent jurisdiction for any amount not recovered on foot of the judgment as a debt due to him by the said Minister.".
This is purely a drafting amendment. As Deputy Leyden's colleague, Deputy Wilson, might say, it is a more felicitous expression of what was intended.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (2) (a), line 21, to delete "an injured person" and substitute "a person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, subsection (2) (a), line 24, to delete "an injured person" and substitute "a person".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 7 is consequential and, therefore, amendments Nos. 6 and 7 will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5—(1) Section 45 of the Principal Act is hereby amended as follows:
(a) by the substitution, for the words ‘on the vesting day' where they occur in subsections (1) and (2), of the words ‘with effect from the vesting day'; and
(b) by the insertion, after the word ‘designated' where it occurs in subsection (1) (a) and (1) (b), of the words ‘whether before, on or after the vesting day'.
(2) Paragraph 13 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution, for the words ‘on the vesting day' where they last occur, of the words with effect from the vesting day'.".
The purpose of this amendment is to empower the Minister for Communications to correct errors and omissions in the list of staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who were designated by him in December 1983 under section 45. In an exercise involving some 30,000 staff I suppose it was inevitable there would be some errors in names and possibly in wrong designations as between An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. Unfortunately section 45, as enacted, did not empower the Minister to make the necessary corrections now but this amendment will empower the Minister to make such corrections now. Errors may have occurred in first or second names or in designation as between one section or the other. This amendment will enable the Minister to make the necessary corrections and that is all that is involved in the matter.
Will the Minister elaborate further in relation to the effects on staff. The explanatory memorandum explained that this was a technical Bill to give clear effect to the intentions of sections 56 and 57 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983.
The Minister of State must be aware of the lengthy discussions and negotiations that took place here between the Minister, the POWU and other unions in relation to the status of the transferred staff. He is also aware that promises were given by his party to members of the staff that they would not lose their Civil Service status. I am concerned that this new section will pose a question mark so far as the staff are concerned. Will the Minister state if the unions have been consulted in relation to this matter? They will be directly representing their members. There is a danger that this Bill is not detailed enough. I should like the Minister to state clearly why this provision is being included now and why it was not included in the Bill when it was first circulated.
I am sure the Department have been considering this situation for the past six months. The Bill was published and printed on 4 April 1984 and within a few weeks several amendments have been put before the House. I am concerned that there may be some sleight of hand operation with regard to the 30,000 people who have been transferred. I have serious reservations about including this section unless the Minister clearly indicates the background to the changes required. I ask him also to explain why a Bill that was printed on 4 April has been changed to such an extent. The whole concept of the Bill has been changed as a result of the revision of the Title. It is broader in scope than the Bill that was circulated to us and the explanatory memorandum did not refer to revision of this section. I should like the Minister to indicate clearly why this change has been made. If we had been notified of the change we could have consulted with the unions involved to get their views.
I cannot understand why, after all the discussions that went on for the last couple of months since vesting dates, the Department, the lawyers and everyone involved could not come up with a Bill which was complete and would not require the amendments before the House today. I accept that the majority of amendments are technical and relate to actions which were taken against the Department and by the Department against individuals and that those actions are now being taken by the two semi-State organisations.
I accept that from the legal advice received by the Department and both organisations it was necessary to have a revised Bill, but I regret that necessity. It is a reflection on the Bill which went through both Houses of the Oireachtas in 1983 and which was debated at length in relation to most of the sections. Some of the sections were not discussed in detail and this highlights the difficulties in this House. In major legislation there is a very good case to be made for a committee system of going through a Bill. This Bill was highly technical and has resulted in this mish-mash of changes which, I believe, is unprecedented in the history of the State. The Bill was passed less than a year ago, came into operation on 1 January and has been revised by this Bill which has been further revised and amended since it was published on 4 April. The Bill has been changed by the insertion of an amendment relating to the staffs of both organisations. The Minister of State should clearly indicate to the House in detail how this section will affect the 30,000 people who, so readily and willingly, transferred to both semi-State organisations on 1 January 1984.
Since that date I have not received any complaints from the employees on the way they have been treated by both boards. I commend the board for the sensitive way in which they dealt with the personnel of both organisations and the transfer. However, we must bear in mind that there was serious concern that they were losing their Civil Service status. Why has this section been inserted at this stage and what provisions in relation to the transfer of staff have now been included which could affect the principles governing their transfer on 1 January? This is a very important section and I regret that the Government have decided to amend the Bill so radically and to change its whole concept at this stage when we had ample opportunity to bring a correct Bill before the House. This Bill has been changed radically and dramatically by the insertion of that section and the Minister should elaborate on the background to the changes.
I categorically assure the Deputy that it makes no difference to the safeguards, guarantees and so on which were laboriously worked out as far as the staff of the two boards were concerned. The unions have been consulted by the boards about this. It is by no means a radical change and does not affect the transfer in the slightest. It is regrettable that it occurred and the reason it is in this laborious from is that the final advice from the Attorney General was only received after we had moved Second Stage. Otherwise, the amendments could have been made before that in the original Bill as introduced.
There were 30,000 staff transferred and a list had to be compiled before the vesting date. There were some mistakes made. Take the case of a small post office somewhere down the country where the telephonist might have been working for the postmaster. He or she might have been put on a list under An Post instead of Bord Telecom Éireann. Little mistakes were made and this legislation is necessary to correct them. I can give a categorical assurance that the major issues which were introduced are not changed. I accept the legislation is cumbersome and I am sorry that it had to be introduced in this fashion but it is understandable that errors are made when a staff of 30,000 is involved. This is to put right the errors to follow the purpose of the original Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 2, line 13, after "ACT" to insert "AND TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF STAFF TO THE SAID COMPANIES".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
I hope that some of the points which I made on Second Stage will be dealt with by the Department. I wish to thank the Minister for clarifying some of the points already raised on Second Stage. However, I still feel that the major points which I made in relation to that are still not resolved. I appeal to the Minister to publish the Swedish report on the billing system for telephones. Since the Second Stage, Bord Telecom Éireann have brought in a new accounts system which has been circulated to all their customers, and I welcome that. I also welcome the new changes which are being proposed and which will be implemented very soon. To allay public fears the Swedish report in relation to the billing system should be published, because I do not see why the Minister and the Government should conceal a report which has been paid for by taxpayers' money. People who are disputing their accounts would be happy to see it and the Minister has not clarified why 40,000 accounts are being seriously challenged in Telecom Éireann. The Minister and his Minister of State should take a personal interest in the telephone accounts system as it affects consumers.
Question put and agreed to.