As I said last night, the purpose of Deputy Bruton's Bill is to improve the responsiveness of BTE and An Post to their customer needs and complaints and to extend the public accountability of both these companies. Obviously we can all agree on these aims but what must matter here is whether the proposals outlined in Deputy Bruton's Bill will achieve both these aims or bring about an improvement at all in the service to the customer. My contention is that the mechanisms outlined in the Bill will not bring about such an improvement and will in no way add to the overall effectiveness and efficient operation of customer relations within both these companies. Rather they will encompass both companies in the bureaucratic system that this Government have been meticulous in removing from every other area of public responsibility.
Private Members' Business. - Postal and Telecommunications Services (Amendment) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).
In order to prove that point it is absolutely essential that we look at the performance of An Post and BTE. Since the establishment of An Post the company have shown continuous improvement. Obviously there were going to be losses in the first two years of operation, but that trend has now fortunately been reversed and profits were recorded in 1986 and 1987. Last year the profit margin was something like £2.77 million. The volume of mail handled by An Post has grown at a steady rate and it is now 16 per cent higher than when the company took over four years ago. There is also growth in the express mail and the business reply area and the number of countries to which express mail services of An Post operate has increased from 36 to 75. As the Minister outlined last night, it is likely to be in excess of 100 in 1988.
There has been no increase in postal charges; they remain at the 1986 levels. In real terms this means that there has been a reduction of 8 per cent in the charges in the last four years. Because of a rationalisation programme that has taken place within An Post we can be happy in the knowledge that our postal charges compare very favourably at this time with those of other EC states. We are fourth in the EC league compared with the figure in 1985 when we were the second highest.
During this period I saw a reduction of 500 in staffing levels in An Post, and in order to increase productivity within the company a self-financing productivity agreement has been introduced. To improve consumer acceptability, the company have established a customer panel where an opportunity is provided to inform the company of the consumers' views of the service, and the company are open to suggestions that anybody out there might have to offer. Therefore, it is now generally accepted that An Post are totally committed to the concept of much closer relations with their customers. Nowhere can the professionalism of An Post be seen to better effect than under the national lottery scheme which they operate under licence from the Minister for Finance. They have improved the collection on TV licence fees and now 100,000 more licences are held than we held in 1984.
Staff were naturally concerned about the standards of working accommodation, and An Post are doing everything possible within their capacity to provide quality staff accommodation. The company have engaged in a major building programme including the provision of new delivery vans and sorting offices and extension and refurbishment of existing post offices around the country. An outlay of something like £7.67 million was made on building works and 18 company offices were refurbished in the 1977-88 period.
An Post do not earn all their revenue from mail services alone; some 25 per cent of it is earned from agency services provided for a number of Government Departments and other bodies. An Post see a need to develop an area of their agency activities and have submitted proposals for the development of their banking business based on a revitalised and restructured Post Office savings bank.
The parcel service of An Post is perhaps the one black spot in the copybook with a £1.6 million loss last year. Last night the Minister indicated the need for remedial action and I am pleased that a plan has been drawn up to solve that problem.
Since the setting up of An Post all one can do really is sing in praise of the transformation that has taken place within that sector. Surely it begs the question, why should we now want to introduce changes to one of the success stories of recent times? I find it beyond me.
Under the present structure BTE are responsible for the operation of the service themselves. The board in turn have to report and be responsible, as outlined in the Minister's speech, to the Minister on a quarterly basis. Surely, again that begs the question we are hearing from the Fine Gael Party here in proposing this Bill. Do they want to put another layer of bureaucracy on a company who are succeeding so well as a commercial entity? Again there has been a dramatic improvement in the structure since 1984, and I would like to outline some of the achievements within BTE. The number of customers has increased from 600,000 to 800,000, yet while that increase has gone on, staff numbers have been reduced from something like 18,300 in 1984 to around 14,500 at present. The telephone system has been completely automatic since last year. The Postal Telegraph Services Review Group set targets for a success rate of 96 per cent on trunk calls. Not only have those targets been achieved but they have been exceeded. The service is now one of the most advanced in the world because of the high proportion of digital exchanges in operation. The company have launched a number of new services which were outlined last night in the Minister's speech, the most notable of which is Eircell. The company's finances have been turned around completely from losing £100 million per year to showing a modest profit this year.
BTE have decreased charges for international calls particularly to North America and to Europe. Surely this is of major significance in the export business sector. Allied to all that is the fact that a further reduction in October to these areas will produce a 25 per reduction for North America calls, a 20 per cent reduction on Europe calls and 30 per cent on New Zealand and Australia calls.
Provision is also made for a substantial £20 million investment in a computerised system to improve the speed of the service, the provision of bills and a capability to respond to customers' queries. Plans are in train to have details available on truck calls if customers so wish and we would all like to see this happen. One should look at this in context and ask if this type of service is available in any other country. This investment will commence in the third quarter of 1988 and will be completed, generally speaking, within an 18-month period.
Deputy Bruton referred to the Ombudsman and it is important to state categorically that the Ombudsman has agreed that Bord Telecom fully co-operatred with him in terms of queries presented to them and he acknowledged that in last year's report. In terms of the misconceptions about major discrepancies in the metering system, I should like to put in context the number of situations where recomendations were made by the Ombudsman and agreed by Bord Telecom for rebates over the past two years. They make striking reading.
For instance, in 1986 there were 300 such recommendations made out of a total of three million bills. In 1987 there were 160 recommendations in regard to the same three million bills. The Minister referred to the fact that there was a low percentage of mistakes, the figure was 0.3 per cent. In the 1986 report, the metering system which has often been held up to ridicule here — although it is used internationally — was upheld in a court case brought against the company because the company decided that they would not accept that inaccurancies existed within their service. The result was that a Swedish consultancy firm was brought in to assess the reliability of the metering operation and the accurancy of the metering system used by Bord Telecom was upheld.
There is also a proposal in the Bill that the Ombudsman's Office should be paid by the companies sums equal to one half of the office's audited costs in executing their duties in relation to the company. Does Deputy Bruton think it should be a function of either of these companies — and would it be appropriate — to fund a group or organisation that has been basically set up to investigate them? That would not be the function of either company and that aspect is not appropriate in the circumstances. Indeed, the whole concept is ludicrous. Both these companies were set up to operate efficiently and effectively and to jog them out of their humdrum existence under which they operated in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. From a business point of view, does Deputy Bruton think it is fair to either of these companies who are operating so well that somebody like the Ombudsman should be imposed on them, interfere with their operations, look for reports day after day while, at the same time, a person who has overall responsibility — the Minister — has charged a board in each of these companies to operate them profitably and efficiently and to report to him on a quarterly basis?
It is the practice throughout the world.
There is a duplication that is totally unnecessary. Its smacks of undue interference. If the shoe were on the other foot would Deputy Bruton be making the same claims, that undue interference in these two companies operating well beyond our expectations is totally out of the question?
Deputy Bruton also called for information that would include a comparison with similar countries in the EC. Key management performance indicators, including productivity, manning, efficiency and the use of equipment were part and parcel of that. In fairness to the companies Deputy Bruton is not comparing like with like in terms of population distribution because we have the most dispersed rural population in Europe and obviously that is more expensive to service than the urban population.
I wish to stress that both these companies have performed extremely well and we accept that this is the case. Surely it is not in the interests of both companies to have information revealed which would place them at a commercial disadvantage relative to other companies in such areas?
What other companies?
It is an expensive exercise to collate the information relating to international comparisons of performance. Because of the underlying factors, one must ask if it adds anything to the improved performance of both companies to have them included in the annual report. Will Deputy Bruton agree that a publication of revenue cost summaries could be harmful economically to An Post? It would be an impossible task for Bord Telecom Éireann to try to distinguish between residential and business users. Will Deputy Bruton agree that the publication of advance borrowing requirements and major investment proposals would constitute undue interference with the day-to-day running of these companies? Will he also agree that it would be commercially imprudent, and indeed would represent a vote of no confidence in the boards charged with the responsibility of making both operations viable, to bring them back closer to ministerial operational control, a position from which they evolved only five years ago?
Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, the inland mail register service provides the type of protection required under the Act. If, as proposed in Deputy Bruton's Bill, it was extended, to the service as a whole it would mean increased costs to the consumer instead of decreasing costs. It would bring about further delays and would surely defeat one of the purposes for which the Bill was produced, that the service should be kept at minimal rates. I should like to ask Deputy Bruton if he considered, for example, the serious and contentious litigation problems for Bord Telecom by the application of section 39 of the Act to internal communications services. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting that it would be logical and feasible for Bord Telecom Éireann to enter into 750,000 individual contracts? If he is, would he propose the same procedure for ESB customers? Deputy Bruton said that the Bill was an attempt to improve the responsiveness of both companies to the needs and complaints of their customers and to extend the public accountability of both companies. In my view the Bill fails on both counts. I appreciate the Deputy's sincerity but in my view it is the old story of the ideal being far removed from the reality. As a new appointment to the front bench Deputy Bruton is seeking to make an impact. I can appreciate why he is doing that because he must face a very able Minister. The introduction of the Bill provides him with a golden opportunity, as he sees it, to put forward his views but it is my opinion that the ramifications of his proposals have not been seriously thought out. I suggest that he gives serious consideration to withdrawing it in view of the adverse impact it would have on these excellent public utilities.
I hope the last speaker is not suggesting that there is no room for improvement in the services of the companies under discussion. I welcome the Bill and I am sure all consumers welcome it. I do not know how any person on reading the Bill can come to the conclusion that it is lacking in clarity. I suggest that Deputy O'Keeffe carry out a vox pop to get the views of the public on An Post and Telecom Éireann. We all admire the investment and the work of the boards in their efforts to give us modern communications systems but I do not think anybody would suggest that there is not room for improvement. I have no doubt there are many people who would occupy the Deputy for many hours listing the difficulties and injustices they have suffered at the hands of those companies. It is because of them that we consider this legislation important.
There is no doubt that there is a lack of confidence in the effectiveness and efficiency of the companies. There is a widespread belief — it is damaging for Bord Telecom — that telephone accounts are not accurate. What is worse is that many people believe they do not have any redress except through the Office of the Ombudsman. In fact, some people do not pursue their complaints and hope that between the swings and the roundabouts an overcharge on one bill will be offset by an undercharge in the following billing period. I am not condemning the board but I must highlight the public view. It is important that consumers believe they are getting a fair deal from these companies. For that reason we cannot adopt the laid back attitude of Deputy O'Keeffe. It is wrong to suggest that if we adopt Deputy Bruton's Bill we will be undermining the confidence of the public in the services provided by those companies. The reverse is true.
Why is the Bill so important? It is important because its provisions will have an impact on the entire population. I do not think there is any person who does not receive postal communications, friendly or unfriendly. We are all involved in a great communication network. We all delight in the fact that more people can afford to have telephones installed. If knowledge is power then communication is critical. On the economic side it is important that the cost of our communications systems is competitive. For that reason I welcome section 2 which states:
Section 13 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 (hereafter referred to as the Principal Act) is hereby amended by the addition in subsection (1) of the following paragraph:
"(c) charges and quality of service are continually reviewed in order that they consistently move towards and ultimately surpass the best standards prevailing among members of the European Community.".
There is a similar provision intended to apply to our telecommunications. We all agree that as a member of the EC it is essential for our competitiveness, if not our survival, that we should be able to compete on an equal basis with our EC partners. We must remember that we are on the periphery of the Community and for that reason it is important that we should aim to surpass our competitors.
Deputy Bruton is being reasonable and practical. His suggestions are important as we approach harmonisation in 1992. Bearing in mind the extent of the competition we will meet by 1992, it is important that our telecommunications and postal systems should be better than those of other member states. I am sure the Minister accepts that. I do not think there is anything outlandish or unreasonable about Deputy Bruton's suggestions.
Deputy Bruton also provides for accountability in relation to planning and programming. If this had been a feature of our business practice in the past we would not now find ourselves in such an economic mess. This Bill lays out the path we must follow in the future. Section 4 (4) states:
Each company shall, before the start of the financial year, publish the borrowing limits that have been agreed with the Minister, and an appraisal of any major investment proposed to be undertaken during the year.
This is the procedure used by every well-run company which wants to survive. Any company which did not adopt this practice would go under or survive only by some fluke of good luck. At the end of the year the accounts must be drawn up but it is also necessary to investigate borrowing limits for the next financial year. A farmer would not invest in a baler or an extra milking machine without appraising its profitability and the long-term rewards. This is simply good accounting practice.
It is particularly important that companies providing a service to the public should be accountable. What member of the public would not agree that at the end of each accounting quarter An Bord Telecom should make a report to the Minister on its performance during that period and that the Minister should cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas? Is it extraordinary that they should be asked to state the number of new telephone applications and the speed of connection; the number of telephone lines which went out of order and the speed at which they were repaired; the speed of reply to operator-assisted calls and directory inquiries; the average call failure rate for local and trunk calls; and the number of public telephone boxes surveyed and the proportion found to be in order? I suspect that 99.9 per cent of people would welcome accountability on the final score in particular. What citizen has not on occasion restrained himself or herself from either kicking or lashing a public telephone to death when pieces were found to be missing or the money was devoured while no service was returned? When one looks at the state of public telephone boxes, one must wonder whether everybody actually succeeds in exercising restraint.
Public telephone boxes are used mainly by two groups of people whom we must respect. There are people who have not yet been able to afford a telephone or who are waiting to have one installed. People living in unfinished estates may have to run down the street in an emergency to reach a public telephone. It could be a matter of life and death. The service is needed by people who have not yet the privilege of a private service in the comfort of their home. The second group to whom I refer are visitors to this country who may wish to use public telephones and may judge Ireland, at least in part, on the service provided by the public telephone system, as well as the state of repair and appearance of telephone boxes.
Deputy Bruton also asks that An Post should make a report to the Minister on the performance of its service during the preceding quarter and that the Minister should cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. This is eminently reasonable and it is a means of identifying and rectifying problems such as postal delays. They would provide the results of a survey of speed of delivery for different categories of post to different destinations; the expected delivery speed for items posted at major postal points during the coming 12 months; the result of surveys of waiting periods at peak times at post offices; a comparison of charges for internal and external post of different categories in Ireland and in each EC member state; and the number of complaints direct from customers and from the Ombudsman, the speed at which they have been resolved and the outcome.
There should be no difficulty in fulfilling these requirements if we have a well-run postal system. I should like to think that An Post would have great pride in delivering this information to the Minister and the House. I would hope to see a constant improvement. If grave delays are found to be occurring, the problem should be rectified within six months.
Every well-run company has a monitoring system and carries out quarterly reviews. Deputy Bruton is attempting to bring good accounting and management systems to our most important public service companies.
All of us welcome the improvement in the maintenance of post offices. Some of them were so out of date, dilapidated and so "user unfriendly" that delays were created which were not the fault of the staff. In some of those post offices staff had to work in very difficult conditions. Until our postal system is up to the desired level, it should be one of our main investments. We must take into consideration the demands we are making on the workers in these important services. We should give them the important resources and back-up to enable them to provide the services at the level of efficiency that we want. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that. Deputy Bruton wants to ensure that, with all the monitoring and reviewing that will take place, there would be good management and good working conditions. That is something that the staff in our postal and telecommunications service would welcome. We have much to do yet with regard to bringing working conditions up to a satisfactory level. We should ensure that when people depend on communications, particularly on the post, it will deliver on time.
I wish to refer to a matter which may not be probable and which may, if it ever existed, have been attended to now. A few days ago on a radio programme I heard a consumer say that her mother had a post office savings book but, like some elderly people, she had hidden it and did not divulge its whereabouts to anybody. After her death it could not be found. Her family could not supply the number of the book and therefore the post office could not help. Some years later when the people were moving house they found the post office book and they received a great deal of interest on the money that had been saved.
Interest rates were high then.
Thank God we have been reducing them in great chunks since.
I do not know if that could happen today. With modern technology and computerisation perhaps a post office might not find itself in such a situation today. That is something which may damage the credibility of people who would wish to invest their savings in a very immediate and dependable manner.
I welcome section 10 of Deputy Bruton's Bill. In paragraph (b) of that section Deputy Bruton recommended that the Minister should have regard to the performance of the company's services before agreeing to an increase in charge. This is of the utmost importance. If the companies accept, as the Minister will, the recommendations of this Bill then the good management, planning and programming that would result, which would help us to reach the quality of the service provided in the European Community, would ensure that by the time either company asked for a raise of charges the Minister would feel that it was justified. It would be wise for the Minister to have regard to the performance of the companies' services before agreeing to an increase. Such an increase would have to be seen to be totally justified before it was sanctioned. Deputy Bruton also asks that section 90 of the Principal Act would include a measure so that every such contract shall be provided in writing to the customer. It is very important that people have a right of reply and a right of service. There is nothing extraordinary in that request but good service and good consumer consideration.
There is a measure in this Bill which is of the utmost importance. If the good planning, management, expertise and efficient services that we all wish for are provided it should not cost too much. I support his request that the company pay to the Ombudsman's office a sum equal to one-half of that office's audited costs in executing its duties in relation to the company. This is necessary and urgent considering the drastic cutback in staff in the Ombudsman's office. The Ombudsman, in his report, has confirmed to us two areas which support the need for Deputy Bruton's Bill. In the 1987Annual Report of the Ombudsman he stated:
I did not uphold 1,679 complaints. As in 1986 a substantial portion of this figure is accounted for by complaints against Telecom Éireann. I pointed out last year that, unlike most other complaints, it is often not possible to prove positively in the case of telephone accounts whether or not a mistake has been made. I can only rely on the evidence available and make a decision on the balance of probability. Usually when I do not uphold a complaint I explain to subscribers that I am not necessarily rejecting the case which they have put forward but simply that I do not have sufficient evidence to make a recommendation to Telecom Éireann in their favour. This has caused a certain amount of disappointment to complainants but unfortunately cannot be avoided——
I would stress the last part of that sentence which reads:
——given the billing system as it exists at present.
The Ombudsman deals directly with a staff on a day to day basis and there is no one better who could give us the relevant recommendation. It is a very serious statement that as in 1986 a substantial portion of the complaints that could not be substantiated, where people felt they were not getting the justice that they felt they deserved, came about not because they did not have a case but because there was not sufficient evidence to sustain it, given the billing system as it exists at present.
The Deputy will be aware that Telecom Éireann are investing £20 million in equipment to bring in a complete new billing system of itemised billing at the request of each customer.
I welcome very much the Minister's information on this and indeed I am sure Telecom Éireann and the Ombudsman in particular will appreciate it as will the consumer and telephone subscriber. As I have said, there is a total lack of credibility and confidence in the present system. I would say to the Minister that if we are going to have such a workable system, and we all hope that we will have such a system, if and when a situation occurs where there is justifiable cause for a consumer to feel that there has been undue delay or overcharging, there should be some method of compensation. If we are investing £20 million in technology the least we can do if a mistake is made with all this marvellous welcome technology is ensure that the consumer is not alone protected but that they will get compensation. The least these cases deserve is compensation.
The Ombudsman's report shows that the number of complaints about telephones and telephone accounts has increased significantly once again. There is room for improvement, the Minister will agree. I welcome this Bill which goes so far to build in safeguards and justice for the consumer. Above all, I appeal to the Government, as long as there is this sense of injustice, and as long as there are so many complaints about telephone accounts, that the Ombudsman be given the staff and the financial resources to carry out the job which all parties in this House entrusted to him.
It is obvious that Deputy Bruton and Deputy Barnes are very concerned about the performance of An Post and Telecom Éireann. I share that concern, and so does the Minister. We would all like to see the consumer protected. We all want the companies to be efficient. I would like to see charges reduced, to see an end to the many complaints from customers, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, in particular in relation to the billing system of Telecom Éireann, but as the Minister pointed out, something is being done about that.
I am convinced that last night Deputy Bruton in proposing that the Dáil take a "special approach" to oversee the affairs of State commercial companies, has gone way over the top on this occasion. While he raised many worthy issues last night that must be addressed by the companies in question, I cannot support this Bill. Having listened carefully to what he had to say, I believe that this Bill, if introduced, would have a very stifling effect on the companies in question and would seriously hinder their development in the commercial world.
I had been convinced over the past 12 months that there was a consensus among the three larger parties in the Dáil about the need for this Government to create the correct climate for the commercial sector — I would apply the same principles to the commercial sector as the private sector — to operate efficiently in the commercial world. I was convinced that this Government must continue to ensure that appropriate conditions exist to allow companies the freedom to develop and grow.
In introducing this Bill, Deputy Bruton appears to have departed dramatically from what I would have thought to be common ground.
It is common practice to regulate monopolies.
I fail to understand why the Deputy has decided to pick on what are two fledgling companies that have been operating for a mere five years. He is attempting to place a straitjacket on An Post and Telecom Éireann at a crucial stage of their development. The Bill, if introduced, would greatly hinder these companies in their efforts to compete in the marketplace.
Compete with whom?
In the European field. The Deputy will have to accept that we are entering a new era of telecommunications, with a worldwide communications system, and we will be competing in the internal market in 1992. It is important that we tread very carefully in this area.
The reality is that great technological and commercial advances have been made in our postal and telecommunication services in recent years, and this has been accepted by all Deputies. We should be encouraging and nurturing these companies to operate as freely as possible rather than advocating the placing of a harness on them. If this Bill were to find its way onto the Statute Book, it would simply wipe out all the developmental advances and improvements made in recent times.
The Bill proposes that quarterly reports, which up to now have been prepared for management purposes, be prepared pursuant to a statutory provision. I believe Deputy Bruton is proposing that the day-to-day operations of these companies would come right back into the political arena. This is a very regressive step and surely is at variance with the Fine Gael Party's attitude to the commercial sector in this country.
An Post and Telecom Éireann may have their faults — and they certainly have — but they should be allowed get on with the business of providing a service and expanding and developing commercially. There have been many problems with An Post and Telecom Éireann. The fact that the Ombudsman was snowed under with complaints about Telecom Éireann's billing system is most disturbing. It is not so long ago that the business community and householders were screaming about the lengthy delay in the installation of telephones — some were waiting for years. This is no longer the case. The waiting list for telephones is 17,000 compared with 60,000 in January 1984 and 58 per cent of the 75,500 connections made this year were completed within three months of application. This is some achievement. When Deputy Barnes was speaking the Minister told us what was going to happen in relation to the billing system. I believe the same progress can be made in this area as was made in the provision of telephone services.
I welcome the decision of Telecom Éireann to invest £20 million in new equipment which will enable them to provide itemised billing for those customers who require it. This will be available in Dublin this year and at a later stage at national level. It has to be pointed out that this facility is not available in Britain — we generally follow the trend there. We should be willing to wait and see how this new system operates. If the new itemised billing system does not prove to be successful, then the Government could consider extending the Ombudsman's powers in the adjudication of disputes with customers. However, I am convinced this will not be necessary.
I hope the companies in question would take serious note of this very worthwhile debate and take on board some of the suggestions made. For example, in sections 7 and 9 of the Bill it is suggested that the companies draw up a code of practice for consumers whereby they could set out standards of service which a customer would hope to enjoy. They would clearly identify procedures for handling complaints. It is also suggested that there be a role for the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Ombudsman's Office. I believe there is a lot of merit in this proposal.
I have no doubt it has not gone unnoticed, especially in Telecom Éireann, that over 40 per cent of complaints made to the Ombudsman related to the telecommunications services. When the itemised billing facility is in place, it will be imperative that the awkward procedures at present in place in relation to complaints be updated and rationalised. Telecom Éireann will have to put a lot of effort into winning the full confidence of their customers. It is in their own interest that they tackle this issue comprehensively, and I would like to see them respond to Deputy Bruton's proposals in sections 7 and 9.
Many speakers rightly referred to the sound performances of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann since they were set up in 1984. I have been even more impressed with their plans for the future than their performance to date. An Post recorded profits in 1986 and 1987 and the volume of mail handled by the company has been growing steadily, as was pointed out by the Minister. In the EC table of postal charges we are now fourth, which shows a steady improvement, and we have been assured that postal charges will be maintained at existing levels to the end of 1988. Whereas the company have succeeded in reaching their target of delivery of 90 per cent of letters on the working day after posting, I share Deputy Bruton's and the Minister's concern about the disimprovement in the standard of service in recent times. I welcome the fact that the Minister will have the results of independent surveys on the standard of mail deliveries carried out by An Post made available to his Department.
A number of innovative initiatives have been taken, such as the special St. Patrick's Day cards postal rate, and the ongoing introduction of new postal stamps. It is obvious that much thought and planning have gone into the production of these most meaningful and artistic stamps. Long may this continue. Like other Deputies, I have been very impressed with the copies of the first day issues we have been receiving.
The establishment of the customer panel so that the customer will have the opportunity to inform the company of his or her views on the quality of service, and make suggestions, is also a step in the right direction. It is no accident, I am sure, that the chairman, Fergal Quinn, has tried this type of consumer service commercially elsewhere with great success. The performance of the National Lottery Company, a subsidiary of An Post, has also been exceptional.
There has been no funding from the Exchequer for the company's capital development programme. This is a very significant point. The replacement of motor vehicles and provision of equipment are funded totally from their own resources and borrowing — something that we must acknowledge as being very desirable. They are obviously striving to continue to be self-financing and to achieve growth. The introduction of a self-financing productivity agreement and the reduction of some 500 in the staffing level in what is a very labour-intensive company is proof that they mean business. I am convinced that they will continue to provide new services for their customers and will increase their cost-effectiveness and productivity in the years ahead.
The story of Telecom Éireann to date is even more impressive. I believe that there are very exciting and challenging times ahead for this company. In 1984 they were losing £70 million a year and in 1987-88 we are expected to see a profit. We should all bring our minds back to the early eighties when, as I mentioned earlier, we had a long waiting list for telephones. I was not then a Member of this Chamber but in my regular advice centre I was dealing constantly with constituents who were seeking intervention in speeding up the installation of telephones, in particular with regard to the business community who were crying out for telephones at the time. In January 1984 there were 60,000 people on the waiting list and now that list has been practically wiped out. The waiting list today is 17,000 — still a lot, but it is a remarkable success story. The business community in particular would have welcomed this development and it has been a tremendous boost to the IDA in attracting foreign companies into this country.
The range and quality of services have been improved dramatically. Full credit must go to Telecom Éireann and, indeed to the Government of the day back in 1979 that decided to establish a semi-State organisation covering telecommunication services and to invest heavily in providing the necessary infrastructure. Had the Fianna Fáil Government of the day not had the foresight to do this, we would not be proceeding with a project of the magnitude of the Custom House Docks site financial services development which will be so dependent on an efficient and modern international communications network. Telecom Éireann must now take advantage of the rapidly changing new technology and, having made many of the changes that I have mentioned in their network in recent years, they are perfectly placed to do so, to become competitive and, in fact, to lead. It is quite startling that the main trunk centres are digital and that we have a high quality and speedy service due to the network of digital transmission systems on microwave radio systems, optical fibres and co-axial cables. This is a new language being used in a new technology.
These developments will bring us into a new age of new markets and with 1992 just over the horizon we will be well fitted to take advantage of our most advanced network. The new Ireland-UK fibre optic cable that will be in place this summer will bring many benefits to this country. Some prices have been cut and there are plans to make further reductions. International charges to the US, as mentioned by Deputy O'Keeffe, and the European Community and some other countries, were cut in 1986 and later this year we will see reductions of 20 per cent on calls to countries within the EC and 25 per cent on calls to North America. These are only some examples of the reductions in charges and it is all most encouraging.
New services are constantly being introduced by this company. The Eircell mobile cellular radio telephone system has been a tremendous success and benefits the business community, in particular. Their plans for the future are mind-boggling. By 1993 we will have an integrated services digital network in place which will mean that fax, telephone, telex and data services will be carried out on a single network. The company are investing about £130 million annually in the network, just to keep up with technological developments. In less than ten years' time we will more than likely be operating the broadband communications service — a service carrying voice, text and video (TV) — another great challenge for Broadcom Éireann Research Limited, an associate company of Telecom Éireann.
The introduction of Deputy Bruton's Bill at this point of Telecom Éireann's growth would be detrimental to their growth internationally. I have referred to these new technological developments to put the Bill in context. It could not have come at a worse time, in view of the rapid changes in technology. We should not cut across Telecom Éireann's commercial mandate. It is going too far to make it mandatory by law for them to publish commercial information. That would be a tremendous commercial disadvantage in relation to their competitors, in particular the European partners. We are competing internationally — Deputy Bruton interrupted me earlier on this point — more so in the future. Deputy Bruton calls for the publication of appraisal of major investment proposals. I think that that would be commercially suicidal again with, in particular, our European competitors. The Bill is asking these companies to show their hand. Anybody who appreciates the difficulty of those operating in the commercial world would understand that that would be most damaging.
Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, protection is provided for the customer under the registered service for inland mail. There would be very serious implications for the consumer in imposing the same system on non-registered items. It would increase the costs of posting and would cause delays. To conclude, because I do not intent to work over ground which has already been covered, Deputy Bruton has obviously initiated a very worthwhile debate. We would all like to see an improvement of services and greater efficiency and we would also like to see the consumer continue to be protected. This Bill, in effect, will put up costs and will cause further delays. The interference suggested in the Bill with, in particular, Telecom Éireann at their critical point in development would be very damaging. I would ask Deputy Bruton to withdraw the Bill and allow these companies to expand.
I find it very difficult to accept the comments of the previous speaker. That a Bill enabling the consumer to make complaints about various aspects of the postal or telephone services is seen as inhibiting the commercial viability of these companies is most regrettable. The previous speaker has identified the kernel of the problem, as indeed the Minister did on the last evening, when he felt that the commercial viability and commercial success of both of these companies were not to be inhibited. What we are seeing is a clear conflict between the commercial mandate on the one hand and accountability towards subscribers on the other.
Since the setting up of these bodies and the taking out of the direct line of political interference in the postal and the telecommunications services we have seen matters move 360 degrees, to such an extent that An Post and Telecom Éireann have now basically no accountability towards members of the public. There is a feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country that the level of complaints against Telecom Éireann and An Post is such as to demand the type of accountability called for in this Bill proposed by Deputy Bruton. I am surprised at the manner in which this Bill and its proposals are being opposed by Fianna Fáil, a party that have prided themselves since the foundation of the State on being in touch with the grassroots. On this occasion the Minister and his party are caught offside. They do not realise the amount of dissatisfaction which exists among consumers so far as Telecom Éireann are concerned. There does not appear to be a wish on the part of either An Post or Bord Telecom to be accountable any longer to members of the public, and regrettably the profit motive appears to have taken precedence over the provision of a public service.
If one looks back at the manner in which the postal service has developed during the years one finds there has been a certain reluctance on the part of An Post to provide the service which they were initially set up to provide, that is the delivery of mail both nationally and internationally. At every opportunity An Post have been anxious to move away from providing this service. Recently they managed to take control of the national lottery. At present they issue television and dog licences and deal with social welfare payments. They flew a kite some time ago to show they had an interest in the issuing of motor taxation discs and they succeeded in being allowed to provide loans in association with banking companies. They are now also in the business of developing photographs. The primary function of An Post is to deliver post as speedily and as efficiently as possible and when they have reached a certain level of efficiency they can then embark on the activities they appear to prefer.
In the past I have brought to the attention of the House that the powers that be in An Post appear to have a policy of closing down rural post offices once the opportunity arises. My understanding is that once a postmaster or postmistress retires, resigns or dies, consideration is given to the closing down of a rural post office — to coin the phrase which the Minister used last night — in the interests of commercial viability. It is regrettable that services are being withdrawn up and down the country in the interests of commercial viability.
The Minister indicated that there has been a marked improvement in the speed at which post is delivered. It was pointed out in a letter to one of our daily newspapers last week that a letter posted in New Zealand on a Friday evening was delivered at its destination in Donegal on the following Tuesday morning. Any improvements are welcome but I believe that internal postal deliveries can always be improved upon. The Minister mentioned that either 96 per cent or 98 per cent of letters posted arrive at their destination the following day. With the advent of the express mail service I would like to see An Post improving on this rate.
It is regrettable that the concept of the second post seems to be on the way out. In many provincial towns many businesses rely on the postal services but the second post now tends to be held in the post office until the following day and it is regrettable that the postal authorities now charge those business people who make arrangements to collect their own mail. This is curious to say the least considering that the postman no longer has to call at a particular premises.
The question of postal charges was dealt with at considerable length by a number of previous speakers. The Government seem to feel a certain sense of pride that our postal charges are only the fourth highest in the EC. I caution people against resting on their laurels and believing this is a success. We can certainly improve on this and it is regrettable, being one of the smallest countries in the EC, that our postal charges are the fourth highest in the Community. I do not think this is something of which we can be proud. The Minister also stressed that our postal charges are still at 1986 levels and assured us this would remain the case until the end of the year. I hope he was not forewarning us of an increase early next year which would go a long way towards putting us back at the top of the EC league in terms of postal charges.
Let me refer back to the point I made on the lack of accountability. In recent times we have seen the advent of the letter box in rural communities, in the process turning the rural postman into some sort of a dummy. In many cases these letterboxes were foisted upon the community and are a departure which we could well do without, particularly given the relationship between the rural postman and the community down through the years. An Post have said that these letter boxes will not be erected in any area against the wishes of the community. However, a certain amount of skilled marketing is involved in introducing these letter boxes and very attractive rates of commission are paid to those who canvass in their favour. Despite the number of complaints which have been received, An Post have not properly addressed the safety aspects of their letter boxes and there is a feeling there is much room for improvement in this regard if they are going to become the order of the day in rural Ireland.
I fully accept that and I can tell the Deputy they are being redesigned to ensure greater security. I agree with the Deputy when he says that the present design is not adequate and because of this they are being redesigned.
I hope with due haste. That leads me on to the right of redress which is available to members of the community if they have a gripe against An Post or Telecom Éireann. The Minister and other speakers mentioned the inception of the customers' panel, a body within An Post, providing people with an opportunity to make suggestions on how the service might be improved. I would question whether this body would have much teeth or effectiveness since it will be inviting members of the public merely to make suggestions. I should like to see some binding applications on them. For example, that panel should be answerable to members of the community who take up the invitation to make such suggestions. I have not heard much comment on that aspect. If the panel will not be bound to implement some of those suggestions, or to make reports on complaints lodged, then it will be of very little use to the consumer and/or their complaints. The word "suggestion" was used carefully by the Minister and by Deputy O'Keeffe here this evening. It is my contention that invitations to make suggestions constitute little more than talking shops. That is precisely why we are dealing with a Bill such as the one introduced by my colleague, Deputy R. Bruton.
I do not intend to go into the monopoly aspect of Bord Telecom Éireann. However, in such a position of monopoly the need is all the greater for a vibrant consumer watchdog control, the type of which is envisaged under the provisions of this Bill. We must remember that, once there is a monopoly position, there will be no competition. Equally, where there is no competition, a consumer cannot switch from A to B or C as they can in the commercial marketplace. As long as there is a monopoly position obtaining vis-à-vis Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post then there must be a case for having a watchdog committee equipped with the necessary teeth to have matters maintained firmly in the interest of the community at large.
There was reference to the concept of the waiting list. Here the Minister appeared to be lavishing considerable kudos on Bord Telecom Éireann and the fact that their waiting list had been considerably reduced in recent years. The reality is that there are 17,000 people awaiting telephone installation. When one considers the great technological advances made over the past five or six years, that amounts to a lot of people and constitutes a large problem. I regret there is still a waiting list. I would not be prepared at all to say that 17,000 people awaiting installation is bordering on the acceptable.
I refer now to the 1986 annual report of Bord Telecom Éireann in which there was reference to the fact that consumers were having telephones installed on demand from six to eight weeks from the date of order. According to that report the on-demand service should be attainable in all districts by mid-1988. The company still encounter a major problem meeting their installation targets, particularly in larger urban areas. The fact that there are 17,000 people on the waiting list is confirmation that the telephone waiting list is alive and with us.
I contend that the problems are of greater proportion than admitted in the annual report of Bord Telecom Éireann. It is significant to note also that the report did not mention problems encountered by consumers during and arising from installation. How many cases are we aware of where a telephone apparatus has been installed but where there will be a delay of a number of months before it is actually operational? There is very little in the report on the quality of the repair service to telephone users, where there is much room for improvement.
Public telephones are another aspect in respect of which the consumer and members of the public generally have a just and valid grievance as far as Bord Telecom Éireann are concerned. We are all aware of the problems occasioned by vandalism. Bord Telecom Éireann readily acknowledge the poor public perception of the public telephone service which they perceive as arising largely on account of the difficulties of maintaining the service as a result of the high level of vandalism. For example, in the year 1986 vandalism cost £1 million in repairs, with the necessity to replace 4,800 handsets. The company's plan to combat the problem was to improve the service by improving the maintenance and cash collection procedures, by the provision of public pay telephones in semi-protected areas, by upgrading the quality of public telephone boxes through the use of high visibility aluminium structures and an education campaign against vandalism. All of that is to be commended and constitutes considerable effort on the part of Bord Telecom Éireann as far as public pay telephones are concerned.
I am receiving replies from Bord Telecom Éireann to the effect that there is a shortage of public pay telephones in the country at present, that they are just not there, all of the other conditions having been met in terms of applications having been favourably considered. I should like to hear the Minister comment on the present non-availability of public pay telephones. Indeed, I should like to hear the comments of Bord Telecom Éireann on the present shortage of such public pay telephones.
In regard to the question of accountability or consumer redress, as envisaged in the provisions of this Bill, it would be fair to say that most Members have had many complaints and queries about Bord Telecom Éireann at their constituency clinics. The number of complaints and queries put to me were such as to warrant my writing to the Chairman of Bord Telecom Éireann, Mr. Smurfit, on 16 March last, informing him that I was doing so as a last resort on behalf of consumers. I was very disappointed that whoever is responsible for dealing with complaints did not see fit to reply. Indeed, to date, I have not received any acknowledgement or reply. On 10 May I sent a reminder and have not had any acknowledgment or reply to that second letter. If deputations with regard to An Post are being refused, if politicians and their representations are to be totally disregarded, what chance has the consumer of getting a response or reply to a query? Again, it is a reason for debating this legislation here tonight.
One of the greatest gripes the consumer has against Telecom Éireann and the telephone system is the question of billing and the manner in which the bills are presented. In the past the Minister stated that by mid-1988 itemised billing would be the order of the day. Now I suspect there is back pedalling in so far as it is now projected for the end of 1988 for Dublin with the rest of the country following on some time later. The Ombudsman's report, the Director of Consumers Affairs' report and the ordinary telephone consumers demand itemised billing at the earliest opportunity. The billing system has been the bane of many subscribers' lives over the past few years.