asked the Minister for Communications the savings which have been achieved through the abolition of the Telephone and Postal Users' Councils, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Postal and Telecommunications Services Users' Councils.
2.
The Postal and Telecommunications Services Users' Councils were operational for three years from 5th July, 1984 to 4th July, 1987 at an average annual cost of £85,524.
Retention of the councils were considered not to be justified and the councils ceased operations on 4 July, 1987.
May I take it the Minister does not intend replacing this body? Is he aware that the abolition of the Postal Users' Council has left people in rural areas where post offices have been closed with no forum to discuss these matters and An Post now have no accountability to the consumer, the members of the public? Does he consider An Post to be no longer a public service and that decisions to close rural post offices can be made on the basis of profit and loss? Is the Minister happy with a situation where post offices are allowed close without any warning to local communities, where deputations may be refused without any reason being given? We now have a situation where a body has been set up with absolutely no accountability since the abolition of the users' council. Is the Minister happy with the current situation?
I appreciate the Deputy's view. Representing a rural constituency myself I can appreciate the torment that can be experienced when there is a disruption of traditional services. However, when the users' council was in force the number of complaints which were transmitted was quite small. Since that time the remit of the Ombudsman has been extended to take account of complaints of this nature against the board of An Post. That would be the proper course of action for members of the public who are dissatisfied with the service to take. I would also point out that the obligation on An Post to operate on a commercial basis has distinct advantages for the community as a whole. We would always try, once the service was breaking even or making a profit, to take more account of areas the Deputy has in mind and progress could then be made.
Does the Minister not recognise tht An Post and Telecom Éireann have a monopoly and by abolishing this single legislative protection for the consumers he has left them devoid of protection? Does he not think that £85,000 is not much to spend on a consumer watchdog for two bodies spending £700 million a year? When he says there was not a significant volume of complaints coming to these bodies, does he not recognise that with 2,000 complaints coming to the users's council and 5,000 going to the Ombudsman, the present Government's decision to axe the Ombudsman's budget and to abolish these two councils is abandoning the consumer who has had significant complaints?
I do not accept the point made by the Deputy. There is ample provision for the public to make complaints and they have obviously been doing that in recent times. Neither do I accept the point that when one refers to public expenditure as being only an expenditure of £85,000 one could make the very same point across a whole range of services. Every Deputy in the House would say that money should be provided for this or that particular service but decisions must be taken. It was felt that within the scope of the Ombudsman's remit and in the context of the use of this council previously, ample provision was made for the public to make complaints.
Will the Minister be introducing amending legislation in the House so that we will have a chance to debate the stand the Government appears to have taken without consulting the Dáil?
I do not know if that is intended but I will refer the question to the Minister for Energy.