I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate as it provides us with an opportunity to examine the performances of both An Post and Telecom Éireann, since their establishment as semi-State bodies in January 1984. It is not all that long ago when we complained about the very long waiting lists for the installation of a telephone particularly in the newer developing areas; Dublin comes to mind in this regard. I am very familiar with large housing estates in my own constituency where householders could not be told when they could expect to have a telephone installed. At one stage the old Department of Telecommunications were not in a position to accept applications for the installation of a telephone, so unsure were they when they would be able to provide a service. Since then considerable changes have taken place in both of these companies.
In his contribution to this debate Deputy Richard Bruton said that the two objectives which motivated his Bill were the desire to seek protection for the customer and the desire to see the best possible economic performance on the part of these two companies. That is a very reasonable aspiration, but I cannot accept that this Bill is either necessary or desirable in order to achieve these objectives. Even a general study of the two companies in question has convinced me that the workers and management fully appreciate their responsibilities which are spelt out in the legislation which led to the creation of these two companies.
The goal of An Post is for them to be seen as running, in their own words, the world's best post office business serving profitably the nation's changing needs. In fact, this statement is contained in their 1987 annual report. They have also stated that they must continually assess their performance in terms of customer expectations and competitive developments. One part of that assessment includes the production of a five year plan, which would be a rolling plan from year to year, which would be submitted to the Minister for Communications. The plan would also describe An Post's guiding strategy for securing their key objectives.
The management and workforce of An Post have stated that their overall objective is to achieve profitable growth through the development of existing and new services for its customers. In that regard An Post have outlined for themselves a number of objectives which include the expansion of the mail market by not less than 3 per cent each year up until 1991 and the building of a profitable parcel service which recognises the need of customers for speed, convenience and cost efficiency. Their objectives also include the introduction of comprehensive financial services providing competitive money transmission and other facilities through their large network of offices around the country. Their objectives further include the installation of an electronic funds transfer network which would provide for existing and new agency clients with an efficient and cost effective transmission service. They also wish to continue to strive for improved productivity in order to minimise costs to their customers and to secure the employment of their workforce. Finally, the provision of a comprehensive and managerial support service to their national lottery company is also one of their objectives.
When one studies those objectives one cannot be but convinced that the workforce are aware that if they are to develop and expand and to take on new agency services they can only do this if their existing services are second to none, if all of the workforce strive to minimise inconveniences and delays to their customers and strive to minimise the grounds which give rise to complaints on the part of their customers. If the company does not do this the setting of objectives is nothing more than a fruitless exercise, and I am quite sure the management and workforce have no intention of getting involved in such an exercise.
The annual report for the year ended 31 December 1987 outlines in considerable detail the performance of the company to date. Anyone who reads the report cannot be but impressed by the expansion of services, the upgrading of facilities and the improvements in the company's premises around the country which have taken place. This has been welcomed by all who have cause to use the services provided by An Post.
Notwithstanding all of the changes which have taken place in recent years it is very important to note that the company made a profit of £2.776 million which includes the moneys received in national lottery management fees. That is an outstanding performance particularly when we take into account the losses which accrued prior to the company becoming a semi-State organisation. It is only right that we should compliment and congratulate all those in An Post who have contributed to this outstanding success story, a success story which is often forgotten. We sometimes neglect to think back to the days long gone when An Post under the old system returned losses year in year out and were a drain on the Exchequer.
Another important question is the question of charges which have a direct bearing on our economy. In the past these have been compared unfavourably with those in other EC countries but due to the efforts which have been made by An Post their charges now compare more favourably with those in other EC countries. Our charges now come fourth in the league table. Only a few years ago they were either first or second in the league table. I also understand that An Post have given the Minister for Communications an assurance that charges will be maintained at their existing level at least until the end of this year. Therefore, there has been a real reduction in postal charges taking inflation into account. This speaks volumes for the management of An Post and of the commitment of the workforce who have had to accept major changes and considerable upheaval in the workings of their organisation as it moved towards profitability, as it improved considerably the range of services being offered to its customers and as it sought to expand its customer base. That should be welcomed by all of us.
Deputy Bruton also said in his contribution that the two companies are relatively immune from market pressures holding as they do a monopoly position in the market. This is not something which I accept completely. Presumably Deputy Bruton was making the point that if an organisation had the benefit of being a monopoly in the marketplace, then they could dictate their terms and conditions to those they are intended to serve. I do not think that is the case with either of these companies. My view is that where a company finds itself in a monopoly position in the marketplace, almost invariably it develops to the stage at which the monopoly company decides it will operate and sometimes develops a market strategy suitable to itself only, very often to the stage at which the specific needs of its customers are not taken into account. In turn obviously that leads to major problems for the company in that it then suffers the loss of support of the very customer base it was intended to serve.
I do not accept that An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann enjoy a monopoly status to such an extent that they can afford to become careless in serving their customers' needs or become complacent in broadening their existing band of customers. This is because of the enormous changes now taking place in the field of telecommunications and of document information transfer. The development of this new technology requires the provision of sophisticated equipment. Frequently this equipment is available from sources other than Bord Telecom Éireann or An Post.
Bord Telecom are having to compete more and more with the private sector in the supply and installation of equipment associated with the provision of a modern telephone service in a manner which was not the case some years ago. Therefore, one could not maintain that Bord Telecom are in a monopoly position. For example, they are having to compete with the private sector in the provision of facsimile machines and associated hardware, the provision and installation of telex equipment and supporting hardware and, in the case of An Post, the provision of franking-machine and lettersorting equipment. In the case of Bord Telecom, they are in competition with regard to the provision of advanced telephone systems, including the associated hardware and the design and installation of those systems. From the point of view of Bord Telecom there is also the question of signal transmission engineering equipment, including its design and installation.
In relation to any of those products it will be found that An Post or Bord Telecom have to compete with the private sector and do so remarkably well. It is an important segment of their business. One cannot confine Bord Telecom to the provision of a pair of wires from A to B, allowing the private sector exclusively to provide the back-up equipment and hardware, hiving off whatever profits may arise from the provision of such equipment, service and design. Such opportunity should be open to An Post and Bord Telecom equally because it is an area in which they must and can compete.
The rapid development of communications technology increasingly places an onus on Bord Telecom and An Post to have the strength, capacity and skills to compete with the private sector. If they are lax in these matters in any serious way, then it will quickly become apparent to other supplier companies who will move in to fill the gap. My purpose in making these points in relation to that aspect of Deputy Bruton's proposals is to illustrate that both companies — if they disregard the concerns of their customers, adopting a monopoly approach — will do so at their peril because quickly other companies will enter the market place who are capable of supplying a great deal of what both companies now have the capacity to provide.
A similar competitive position is developing in the postal services area. The rapid growth in previous times of courier services has demonstrated that, where there is a gap in the marketplace the private sector move in fairly quickly to fill it by providing the services required, for example, in the region of urgent document collection and delivery. This is a service I believe An Post should develop more strenuously. Clearly it is complementary to their function and role. They should not easily surrender various functions which can be profitable, which are complementary to their role, to other agencies.
We all remember some years ago when the private sector sought to provide its own postal collection and delivery service. At that time a number of privatelyowned postal delivery companies were established, due largely to what was perceived at that time as a State-run postal delivery service which was over-priced and somewhat unreliable. I do not think those companies were acting strictly within the law at the time. Nevertheless we should remember that the private sector would try again to enter that area of postal delivery and collection if An Post fail to live up to their stated objective. If they fail or weaken in their resolve to serve their customers, then An Post or Bord Telecom will be the losers, which will have an effect on the stabilisation of their workforce and the whole range of facilities capable of being and at present provided by both organisations. That resolve should not be weakened in any way but it will if they fail to respond to customer needs or complaints, or if they fail to try to devise operational systems within their organisations by which they can deal expeditiously with customers who have cause to complain for one reason or another to either or both organisations.
In the course of the debate yesterday there was a great deal of discussion in relation to the introduction of roadside letter-boxes, when heated argument developed on this issue. I understand that roadside delivery boxes are provided by An Post only with the voluntary agreement of the householders concerned. As I understand the position, there is no compulsion on anybody to accept delivery of mail to the roadside letter-box. Figures provided to me indicate that there has been fairly widespread acceptance of roadside letter-boxes, amounting to approximately 7,000 to date, and that, in a small number of cases only, has there been organised resistance. I believe An Post recognise the potential hardship on elderly or disabled people living alone having to collect mail from roadside letter-boxes. An Post should accept and recognise that hardship so that, in such cases, the company would be prepared to ensure that mail is delivered to the homes of such people.
There have been some cases also of householders who, having agreed to the erection of roadside letter-boxes, changed their minds, An Post having gone to considerable expense to provide and erect the boxes and re-organise postmen's delivery routes. In these cases I suppose it is not unreasonable for An Post to require householders to collect their mail at the local post office. It is not unusual, when dealing with a large number of people, to find a small number changing their minds. It might be possible for An Post to re-examine this matter, allowing people who genuinely decide to change their minds to do so. It would not be unreasonable to expect An Post to meet this change of heart without the imposition of any financial penalty.
I understand that the type of roadside letter boxes in use in Ireland is in widespread use on the Continent and does not appear to have presented security problems there. I am aware that there appear to be security problems here and that discussions are taking place with Irish manufacturers with a view to producing a box which would incorporate more security features. Of course An Post meet the cost of providing and erecting new roadside letter-boxes. I understand that customers are canvassed in regard to the provision of such a box by a local post office official. It has also been pointed out to me — this matter having been raised by other Members — by An Post that there is no question of a commission being paid to any such official in respect of each customer who accepts a box. I think that was suggested by Deputy Flanagan.
Deputy J. Higgins raised a question relating to a person in Leap, County Cork, being required to pay an annual fee of £27.50 to collect mail from the local post office. It just shows how one can get the wrong impression. Anyone reading a statement about that would think it was because he refused to agree to the provision of a box. On detailed inquiry into this case, the question of delivery to a roadside box is not at issue at all. The fee is the normal charge for a person who wishes to collect mail from a post office in preference to having it delivered by the postman. This arises regularly in the commercial sector, where companies, for their own reasons decide to collect post directly at the post office. I understand there is a fee charged for that service.
