Deputy Connaughton was in possession and he has 11 minutes remaining.
Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that when the Ordnance Survey office is privatised there will not be a dramatic increase in the cost of maps. There will be increases as a result of inflation and so on but I am afraid the subsidy that is currently available will be reduced dramatically over the next few years and the board, which will have a commercial remit following the enactment of the legislation, will be directed to sell the maps everywhere it can and at whatever price it can realise. At the end of the day the only way the board may be able to recoup its expenses is through price increases.
The Ordnance Survey office will not have many competitors and I am unaware of any other company which is engaged in the production of maps. Many Members want an assurance when the Minister of State replies to the debate that prices will not increase in such a fashion. I do not know what type of guarantee could be accepted because everyone appreciates that times are changing rapidly but this issue is a concern.
I am not completely au fait with the new technologies in the Ordnance Survey office but computer and satellite equipment that could not even have been dreamt about a few years ago can now be utilised. However, I am aware of procedures in the area aid unit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Every acre of land in Ireland is now digitised and because of the use of satellite technology the unit can photograph every pocket of land, no matter how small it is. I assume the Ordnance Survey office could avail of similar technology and, if so, significant commercial opportunities will present themselves for the office. I foresee a large market developing with the aid of this new technology. All of us must appreciate that commercial remits make such bodies tick nowadays but I am afraid that, while a better system may be developed, maps may cost two or three times their current price. All maps cost money, whether one is applying for planning permission, a drainage scheme or a natural habitat scheme. However, one cannot do without them as they are fundamental.
I hope every effort is made to ensure that under the new commercial remit the mapping of less prosperous areas of the country, such as bogs and mountainsides, is available at the same unit cost, although it will probably cost more to map them. We have always had a problem with out of the way places which were not mapped in the past. When I hear that a map must be drawn I cringe because that means it will be 12 months before anything happens. I understand that in the new ordnance survey system many of the landmarks, such as ESB lines and gas pipelines, will be factored into the new maps. I am sure the new road system will also be factored into it.
We were lucky in Tuam in my constituency to get one of the local offices. It is not a big office, but it is important. I accept that the decentralisation of the Ordnance Survey Office is important. I could not understand how the ground work would be organised in Dublin, but that did not happen as the offices were decentralised. The Minister of State said in his speech that the area offices will not be downgraded as a result of this legislation. Perhaps he could clarify that in his reply.
As regards the staff, I have not been contacted by any member of the staff. However, it appears the staff are not happy with the Minister's proposals, although he seems to think they are in agreement with them. If I was a civil servant in any of the Ordnance Survey offices, I would like to think that whatever career path was available to me would still be available under the new system and that if I wanted to move in or out of the system, I would be allowed to do so. That type of flexibility is important, particularly for the people who nailed their colours to the mast and decided to work in a local office because that is where they want to live. We cannot blame people for worrying about being moved from one office to another or about the numbers who work in a particular centre being dramatically reduced. I assume the Minister has given much time and thought to this issue because it cannot be done without the staff.
The general thrust of the Bill appears to be correct. However, the commercial aspect must be taken into account. There may be day to day problems under the new system. I remember on a number of occasions when there were problems in the Ordnance Survey Office, such as delays in mapping, we could raise the matter in the House. Will it be possible to debate such issues in the House under the new system because they will be of direct relevance to everyone? It would be a huge mistake if we allowed a situation to develop which meant we could not do that or which allowed a Minister to say it was not possible to answer a direct question on a matter because of the new system and status of the body. The Ordnance Survey Office did not take up much time in this House because it performed its duties well. However, there is always the possibility that a member of the public might not be satisfied with it. Our parliamentary system should allow us the opportunity to raise the matter.
I find favour with the main thrust of the Bill. I assume that once the Minister gives an undertaking, there will not be any adverse effects on the decentralised offices throughout the country and the staff will buy into it. If that is the case, there will not be any problems with this legislation.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Dennehy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
When the Minister of State opened the debate, I was delighted to hear him say that staff associations had welcomed the idea of setting up the Ordnance Survey Office as a State body. Some of the speakers in the interim seemed to indicate they did not agree with that. I am aware the Minister met some of the bodies in recent days and that many of the issues which were causing concern among the staff have been addressed or are about to be addressed.
There was some surprise in many circles that the idea of moving the Ordnance Survey Office from within the ambit of the Civil Service was being mooted at this time. I understand the idea has been floating around for almost 20 years and that a proposal or recommendation dating back to at least 1985 suggested that the service would benefit greatly if it was removed from the Department of Finance. It is clear there were some constraints on the development of the service in recent years which stunted its growth.
The staff representatives have had recent meetings with the Minister and many of the issues have been progressed. Sections 15 to 17 of the Bill address many of the concerns raised by speakers, some of whom spoke as if these sections did not exist. Many people spoke about the potential loss of Civil Service status and the difficulties that might create and the fact that people should be given the opportunity to transfer. However, those concerns were not raised by the staff to whom I spoke in the Ennis office and in one other office. They were more concerned that the regional offices might come under threat in the future. They made the reasonable point that a regional spread of offices for a service, such as ordnance survey, is an enormous advantage for undertaking the type of work required.
People tend to think that mapping work is almost complete because more land is not likely to appear. However, they tend to forget about the sub-division of properties, particularly in terms of road building and the construction of houses. There are also huge demands in the area of agriculture, as was stated by previous speakers, and in a number of other areas where map making must be up to date and new technologies have come into play.
Decentralisation was mentioned by a number of speakers. I got the impression from what the Minister of State said that it is unlikely the Phoenix Park headquarters will remain there in the long-term. In the event that decentralisation becomes an issue for its headquarters, we would welcome it in Clare if that opportunity presents itself.
The current staff have done a wonderful job in addressing the issues and using the latest technology in dealing with their workload. It is also clear that the Ordnance Survey service has the potential and the capacity to expand and develop dramatically. If this Bill facilitates that, which is clearly the intention, then it will be a good day's work.
The Minister of State made it clear that the Ordnance Survey Office will continue to fulfil its current role in mapping and providing ancillary services for the Government. This will be done under a service agreement for public functions provided for in section 25. That is the only role Government needs to have concerning the Ordnance Survey and it is provided for in the Bill.
Sections 5 and 6 allow the Minister for Finance to give policy directions and additional functions to the new company. We may revisit that area with the Minister at some future date when we wish to move in one direction or another as regards particular policy matters.
During the debate Deputies referred to the wonderful work undertaken by the original map makers from the establishment of the Ordnance Survey in 1824 and onwards over the subsequent 150 years when today's modern technology was not available. The huge amount of material that has been made available over the years should be acknowledged.
Section 10 provides an important right of access to premises for the staff to carry out their functions. There are situations in which that right may be extremely important so I welcome the fact that it has been clarified and properly provided for in the legislation.
Archaeological records have been preserved from original maps but, unfortunately, while in many cases the records have survived archaeological monuments have been damaged. Neverthe less, it is important that records remain so that we can preserve as many of these monuments as possible for the future.
I hope in its new role the Ordnance Survey will be able to play a more central role in mapping underground services, particularly in built up areas which have a huge level of such services, including electricity, water and sewerage. By and large, these services tend to have been very poorly mapped. It would be a huge addition to our knowledge base if all these services were properly located on maps. I hope the Ordnance Survey will take an interest in this matter which, though it might prove difficult, could bring great rewards from interested customers.
I welcome the changes in the status of the OSI as proposed by the Bill. I compliment the Minister on his approach to preparing the legislation, and the length of time he took to discuss the issues that could arise. The passage of the Bill through both Houses gives Members an opportunity to pay well deserved tribute to the work of the staff involved, including those who participated in such good mapping over the generations.
The general public is not too familiar with the work done by the Ordnance Survey. Maps appear for public use but we seldom question their provenance. It should be stressed just how important is the Ordnance Survey's work. In many walks of life it is of critical importance and it is only right that we should acknowledge that fact.
Deputy Killeen raised the interesting issue of mapping underground services such as gas, electricity and telecommunications. The most annoying aspect of this matter is the repetition of road digging by service providers. The matter could perhaps be examined with a view to co-ordinating the work of local authorities and the Ordnance Survey. In Cork city, the corporation has a relatively new computer programme into which it can feed most of these services, but the rest of the country does not have such a facility and, consequently, it can be chaotic. It is a demonstration of how we could open things up a bit more.
A small number of issues has been raised repeatedly during the debate, which indicates how carefully the Bill was prepared. Many contributors mentioned the fears of the Ordnance Survey's staff and it appears that there has not been too much discussion with those involved. I got the same impression as Deputy Killeen, that the staff are concerned at the idea of centralising the service and getting rid of the regional offices. It is essential to have regional offices so that the service can be provided locally.
I am concerned about any misgivings of the staff of the Ordnance Survey's regional office in Cork. Those misgivings should be dealt with as clearly, positively and speedily as possible. I have spent most of my adult life in a semi-State company so I can understand more than most people how any proposed changes in status, structure or conditions can lead to great concern. The concern that has been expressed relates to the possibility of centralisation. It is no harm to air this matter and to examine it.
It is imperative that the changeover be carried out in a positive and business-like way with the maximum employee participation. The Minister spent quite some time in his opening remarks explaining how that had occurred.
My party colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, referred earlier to changes in the approach to worker directors, and he is quite correct. Putting in place representatives from any outside group or affiliated body, regardless of their involvement in other things, is no substitute for direct worker participation. Surrogate worker directors are totally unacceptable. There seems to be a consensus now, as Deputy Noel Ahern indicated, on the sources for these worker directors, although it is not all concerned with political placement. When everyone else in the partnership approach agrees on such change, it is important to keep an eye on the original thinking behind the concept of worker participation. That was that people on the site, who knew what was happening and were in touch, would have a say in the future of a company. They understand what is happening and can feed that back to the work force who would be involved in decision making. It will be important to maintain that sort of thinking in future.
I welcome the indication on the future commercial role of the OSI. We keep hearing that there is massive potential through information technology. With the upgrading of mapping techniques, the OSI is in a better position to compete in a commercial market and I wish the Ordnance Survey well in that regard. All possible options should be examined so that the OSI will have an opportunity to participate fully in the market place. Just because a State service is being provided it does not mean the company has to become a lame duck; it must be given the opportunity to succeed commercially.
I would sound one note of concern, however. I understand the OSI's staff have powers to enter upon private lands and premises in carrying out their functions. They are authorised to place their sovereign marks on land, which is an essential requirement because the job cannot be done without that facility. Bearing in mind the recent reaction of the IFA which has been able to prohibit statutory bodies – both local government workers and employees of the National Roads Authority – from operating, is the Minister satisfied that section 10 will not be used to prevent the ongoing work of the OSI? Recent events are regrettable, but do we need to examine other areas? In light of the IFA and court challenges, is the Minister of State satisfied that he can make section 10 stick?
I welcome this change. We could examine other State and semi-State bodies with a view to dragging them into the real commercial world. Assistance and facilities will be needed. One of the difficulties in the past was that the premises in the Phoenix Park was inadequate. I hope this matter will be addressed in any proposals and I am sure the Minister of State will deal with this issue. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and compliment the Minister of State on his work. Very few complaints were raised by the Opposition or the Minister of State's colleagues and I commend the Bill.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We all recognise that maps have a widespread application at this stage in our history. Apart from their use in planning and area aid applications, they are also of value for historical research purposes. Maps are an important primary historical research tool. I know a number of people involved in academic research whose concerns I will refer to later. However, they regard historical maps as an important aid to historical research.
The Ordnance Survey has provided maps for about 177 years. Is this not an opportunity to examine the totality of maps going back hundreds of years? Has any effort been made to collect these maps? These are historical documents, some of which are very expensive. The House is discussing the heritage fund at present, but important maps of this country are located throughout the world. Perhaps an effort should be made to bring them back to Ireland and, perhaps, to place them in the National Archives.
Will the Minister of State confirm whether OSI will transfer all its maps and plates to the National Archives? A considerable amount of data is already in the National Archives, but will the Minister of State confirm whether all of the historical research will be transferred? How far back does the material in the National Archives go? Some of the old copper plates are 200 years old and are of considerable value. These are precious items which should be preserved. Any such material should be stored in the National Archives.
Previous speakers referred to the major changes which have taken place to the landscape in recent years. OSI produces maps on a six monthly basis which is an important service given the changing nature of the landscape.
I was a history teacher and maps were one of the tools I frequently used. Children can relate to maps through which they can see the changing face of their local communities and landscapes. On field work exercises I would send children into the local area to see where houses had vanished and populations had declined and disappeared. Maps tell a story and are a critical primary source of information for researchers, history teachers and schools.
During debate on this Bill in the Seanad, Senator O'Toole referred to the educational aspects of the legislation. Preferential treatment should be given to schools which require maps for educational purposes. The new organisation will be a commercial entity and will have to make money. However, when schools and academic researchers require maps they should be accommodated as far as is possible.
I know some of the cartographers in the Ordnance Survey who have no problem with this Bill. The more money which can be generated, the more secure their jobs will be. The more commerically-oriented the new company is, the better for them. Some people have expressed concerns that this will be a private company, but that will not be the case. The company will operate on private sector principles, but it will still be owned by the State which will continue to have a major say in how it is run and will provide subventions.
The concerns of staff largely relate to decentralisation. About 200 people work in the Ordnance Survey in Dublin. Their work is highly specialised and the cartographic grades are very specific. These people would face difficulties if they wish to stay in Dublin and have to transfer to other Departments. If OSI is to be decentralised I would bet it will go to the Minister of State's county. That may be incorrect, but it would be difficult to recruit staff from other Departments because of the specialty involved. Such a move would not be similar to decentralising an agricultural or social welfare office. OSI's work is highly specialised and technical and it would be difficult to replace its staff if the office was decentralised and these people did not wish to leave Dublin. That option is open to all civil servants. However, if OSI staff choose not to go they will have to move to other Departments which have different requirements and it would be difficult for them to adjust.
A number of issues have been brought to my attention by people who are in regular contact with the Ordnance Survey and who are familiar with it. I do not know whether their information is accurate, but I will put their questions to the Minister of State. Someone recently demonstrated to me how inaccurate the digitised boundaries are and informed me that it was necessary to contract a different company, at extra cost, to correct the discrepancies. The boundaries of townlands, DEDs and counties have been digitised. However, rather than digitising the cumulative boundaries of the relevant townlands within a DED, the outline maps of each DED were digitised separately using a different scale of one quarter of an inch to a mile to establish the boundaries of DEDs.
That was done presumably from the county index to the 6 sheets, the scale of which – depending on the size of the county – is one quarter or one third of an inch to the mile. When these boundaries, digitised at different scales and each with its own specific factor of error, are superimposed on the computer screen, they do not coincide. The discrepancy may not affect the use to which many users of GIS put the package. However, when the image is enlarged to a scale relevant to the requirements of a user for whom precision is essential the discrepancies can be catastrophic. This was demonstrated to me and I estimate that the image had a discrepancy of between 30 and 50 metres. This would mean that a feature situated in a townland in one county would appear well inside the boundary of a neighbouring county, likewise within a DED. I would like the Minister of State to offer some clarification.
It seems to some that this is symptomatic of the attitude of the Ordnance Survey since it focused on the large-scale commercial contracts for revenue generation some 20 years ago. The same attitude is revealed in the production of maps by photocopying and later by computer print-out where poor quality paper is subject to erratic distortion by heat or moisture. This, apparently, led to court cases some years back where structures planned on a map were found to have extended to a neighbouring property.
There is a two-tier mapping system in place. There are large-scale metric maps which have been available since the mid-1970s. The bulk of large-scale maps are still in the old imperial measurements of 6 and 25. This refers particularly to places in the west like Connemara and parts of County Kerry. Metric maps are available for urban areas and their catchment areas as well as areas of high grade farming land. The imperial maps are outdated. I think the maps of the Aran Islands date back to the middle of the 19th century. Inhabitants pay the same price for maps, whether they are in the imperial or metric systems. It is quite unfair that this should be so. Some of the information on the imperial maps is quite inaccurate. To correct and use these maps would require considerable extra expenditure.
I am aware that forward planning in County Kerry has been curtailed because planning officers have been unable to base proposals on existing maps due to the misleading representation of landscape features in environmentally sensitive locations – usually areas where mapping has been neglected. There is a lot of forward planning in County Kerry – I am sure the same is true elsewhere – but it is certainly being hampered in some cases because of the unavailability of metric digitised maps.
I understand a resurvey of rural Ireland is ongoing and due to be finished in two and a half years. It is very important that financial resources are provided for the Ordnance Survey to complete this as soon as possible. I am sure the problems which I have outlined are widespread. The new mapping is almost exclusively dependent on aerial photography which speeds up the process enormously. However, with the cutting back on final checking on detail through fieldwork, there is a loss of precision. This is especially true in the case of structures whose roof area is larger than the actual footprint on the ground. Significant discrepancies have been noticed. If an aerial photograph is taken of a house which has a roof with a wide span, it can distort the actual footprint on the ground. This can lead to many problems. I understand there are only six or seven field workers in the whole country. With the rate of building we have witnessed, we could have a lot of houses mapped but with the wrong footprint. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to any discrepancies? Have there been many queries about them?
There is concern expressed about the paper used in reproducing maps. The paper used in Ordnance Survey maps from the outset was of very high quality. Many maps were works of art and are quite valuable. The use of such paper was to counter irregular expansion and contraction of paper in different atmospheric conditions. That cannot be said of the paper currently being used and distortion can be considerable. I recognise that printers cannot use heavy vellum, but the use of such non-resilient paper is something that should be looked at.
The Ordnance Survey has a very advanced geographical information system. Consideration should be given to academic and research licences in a variety of cultural areas, whereby the country's heritage can be elucidated in a manner unattainable without recourse to GIS. The results of such research could reveal unexpected commercial potential for the subsidiary companies envisaged in the Bill. Ireland led the way in the 1830s in being the first country to implement national mapping on a scale as large as 6. The millions who comprise the Irish diaspora, especially in America, and Ireland's popularity as a cultural and environmental tourist destination could provide the basis for products targeted at these, given the initial creative effort. There should be preferential treatment for cultural and genealogical research. There is a 20% reduction in cost for universities seeking maps. This should be increased. There is a huge interest in genealogy, particularly in America. People visit the local church and genealogical centre, but they want to see the footprint of the ancestral house if the house is no longer standing. That is reason it is important that people have access to this information at reasonable prices.
As regards place names, the pressure under which the GIS and its ancillary database of place
names was developed led to some unfortunate results. Place names which had been accidentally misspelled on survey maps and in the topographical index of townlands were included in the database without correction. I ask the Minister of State to address this. As to the ramifications of computerisation, it will become more and more difficult, given the rigidity and permanence required by such systems, to eliminate these misleading mistakes. In other words, what system is in place to correct the place names which have been spelt inaccurately in the database?
I welcome the Bill and thank and compliment the Minister for introducing it. He has introduced a vast raft of legislation since coming into this job, for which he ought to be complimented. It should also be recognised that the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, established the interim board under the rainbow Government. We also deserve some credit, therefore, for this legislation.
I compliment my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, on his tour de force. The depth of my knowledge does not equal to his. He provided a very interesting discourse on the role, function and importance of the Ordnance Survey, particularly from the point of view of local history, culture and tradition. Ordnance Survey Ireland is one of the great historical parts of the Civil Service. It is humbling to reflect on the fact that it has existed in almost the same form for so long having survived British rule, the War of Independence, the Civil War and two world wars. Perhaps, therefore, after such a long time in its current form, it does no harm to reflect on ways in which it can be changed and improved to place it on a firm footing for the years ahead.
Notwithstanding the necessity to look deeply and thoroughly at the Ordnance Survey, I am a little concerned by the almost undue haste shown in changing some traditional Civil Service roles into either commercial or semi-State bodies. This extends across all Departments and, perhaps, all political parties. I appreciate the interim board established in 1997 proposed the introduction of this legislation and indicated it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give the Ordnance Survey a greater commercial role without first introducing the legislative changes we are now debating. Nevertheless, I am slightly concerned by that kind of thinking.
The past ten to 15 years have seen a huge change in the way we look at State enterprises and boards as well as the Civil Service as a whole. Perhaps we have too readily arrived at the cosy consensus that huge change is required to the way in which work is performed and to the ownership of companies from the perspective of privatisation. I appreciate this legislation does not entail the privatisation of Ordnance Survey Ireland or anything remotely of that nature, but I wonder how we can ensure its real role from a map making perspective, which is of huge strategic national importance, can be fully preserved when we are simultaneously telling the organisation it must have a strong commercial focus.
This morning we debated the crisis in Aer Lingus. During such debates, to which no doubt we will frequently return in the coming weeks and months, the point is always made that a national asset cannot be entirely commercial and there must always be room for State aid. The Ordnance Survey has been a national asset for over 170 years. We must reflect on the fact that it has a huge national role to play from an economic and social perspective. While it is imperative that the job of the Ordnance Survey is done in the most cost effective manner possible, I am somewhat concerned that we feel obliged to change its structure in order to place these new requirements on it. It would portray defeatism and weak thinking on the part of politicians if we have reached a consensus that bodies currently within the full remit of the Civil Service such as the Ordnance Survey cannot do their job properly or effectively without changing their structure. I welcome privatisation and change of ownership in many areas of State control, but it is not absolutely necessary that everything has to change.
I ask the Minister to explain the reason he and his officials, as well as the previous Government, formed the view that the commercial necessities of Ordnance Survey Ireland could not be guaranteed under its present structure. They received advice that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do so. Why is that the case? Why can an organisation which has stood the test of time for over 170 years not be able to adapt within its present system of management? Again, I concede the change proposed is quite modest and does not amount to creating a fully commercial or privatised agency. However, I seek assurance that this is not change simply for change's sake. Will the Minister assure us that the important national development role played throughout the decades by the Ordnance Survey can be maintained to the same degree and to the same effect within its changed structure?
My colleague, Deputy Deenihan, referred to staff levels and decentralistation. No one has spoken more often than the Minister of State about Government plans for decentralisation. I trust the commitment he gave some months ago to announce the decentralisation programme in the autumn will be fulfilled. I appreciate that the type of extensive decentralisation programme proposed by the Government and supported by every political party in the House can be difficult to get up and running. However, it was expected over 18 months ago. There have been numerous statements announcing it would start the following month or the month after that. We want progress.
Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate his latest thinking on the matter and the position of the OSI vis-à-vis prospective decentralisation. To judge from his thinking several months ago, the programme would have been launched by now and an initial phase of towns announced. While I appreciate there is more to it than announcing ten or 12 towns, the silence has been somewhat deafening. There is a political as well as a general economic and social side to the argument. I welcome the fact that the original Government proposal to announce ten or 12 towns in an unseemly rush 12 or 18 months ago appears to have been vetoed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney. I trust the Government's programme will be implemented for good social and economic reasons. While there will be some degree of political consideration – as always happens in the affairs of state – I hope the political considerations will be well down the line when the towns are being selected. I have taken the opportunity of this legislation to say a few words about the need for progress on the decentralisation proposals.
I have no fundamental difficulty with the legislation. I am concerned about our consensus that there must be dramatic change in the manner in which all State boards and State agencies operate. I hope this is not change for change sake.
Will the Minister clarify why it is necessary to pass this proposal? Could the Ordnance Survey in its present incarnation not do its work from a commercial perspective? What guarantees can the Minister give that the main role of the Ordnance Survey – which is not commercial, it is much greater than any commercial activity – will continue unhindered when the new management is told to operate with a view to a break-even or even a profit situation? State ownership should not be regarded as a sacred cow, but we should not throw in the towel in relation to our Civil Service and its operation.
No political party appears to be opposing this legislation and it will be passed, but we should reflect on our rush to change how the Ordnance Survey does its business, particularly as it has served the State well for more than 170 years.
I am pleased to speak on this important Bill. Deputy Bradford made a very good point. The Ordnance Survey office has served the nation very effectively for 170 years. I am a supporter of private enterprise but it is important to acknowledge the huge level of commitment and dedication of the staff. They have done outstanding work. Many members of the staff are wondering what will be the advantages of the change in the role of the office. The electoral register still retains the same format as 30 years ago.
I am familiar with the concerns of the staff in the Sligo office. There are 19 members of staff, most of whom are married with families, in the Sligo region office of the Ordnance Survey. They are using the latest technology and years of experience to produce the OSI latest product, the first truly 3D map in digital format at a scale of 1:5000.
That office has done outstanding work and the staff are very dedicated. They are concerned that having been at the forefront of developing this new product it could now be outsourced to foreign companies and they will be forced to compete with companies in low wage economies. Competition is the life of trade and it is a competitive world, and that is what the Minister proposes. The staff are also concerned that the new phrase being used by the OSI management – fit for purpose – means that the OSI plan to dumb down on its standards possibly because the foreign outsource companies cannot achieve the standards currently employed by the staff of the OSI. The Minister should address that concern.
The consultation allegedly offered to staff about the change of status was not consultation but a series of information meetings where the staff were told what was going to happen. They were not asked to make an input and no heed was taken of them. Will the Minister confirm that is the case? I would be very disappointed if that were the case. It is important to have consultation with staff.
People are concerned about leaving the security of State employment for private enterprise. If there were information meetings instead of consultation with staff, that would be contradictory to the Government's preference for openness and transparency. This will be a major change for staff because they are leaving the security of the public service and moving into the deep blue sea. It is important that guarantees are given.
The recent staff questionnaire, already quoted in the House, shows that the staff do not support the change of status. It is important to have happy campers working in any business and to have a good team working with management. The private enterprise ethos of management is of a team working together and that is also the new thinking in the public service. It is important that the least skilled member is part of that team. Equality of treatment of all staff is very important and I would be disappointed if this decision were taken without serious consultation with staff.
The staff are also concerned that their 20 plus years of service and their loyalty seems to count for so little in the changes being made. Will that loyalty be recognised in the new structure? Will there be a gratuity payment or a golden cheque paid for years of service? Will the new agency incorporate new staff or will there be a new marketing team? The names of deceased people still appear on the electoral register. I know the Ordnance Survey had been working with the post office to update its database, whether urban or rural based. Account must also be taken of the development of the national spatial strategy and the population changes which are taking place. There is no substitute for the "foot soldiers" on the ground in providing accurate information. That we have massive technology does not ensure that the information we get is totally accurate.
The Minister of State appears to take an added value approach to the Ordnance Survey, in terms of sourcing new business and a more commercial approach to the pricing of existing services to the public and private sectors. Will the Minister of State expand on what he intends in that regard? Where does he see the new customers? How were the existing customers looked after and what was their level of satisfaction? Was the post office using the existing service? In the new service, does the Minister of State expect the post offices to be used as an information base? With regard to the retail trade, most marketing companies in the US and the UK use very accurate information to target niche markets or particular audiences. There is great potential in that area.
As Deputy Bradford has pointed out, there is no point in change for the sake of change. While I have not studied the matter very closely, I assume the Minister of State has a concept of what the new arrangements will achieve. It is not enough to present the new business as a panacea, without specifying what we expect from it. Where does he see it in five years time and what are the expectations on profitability? Will the new enterprise be answerable to the Minister of State on an annual basis? Will there be an annual report to the Oireachtas?
Concerns have been expressed by the OSI staff in Sligo. I had the following letter from a staff member whom I will not name:
I am writing to you in relation to the Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001. My union has written to the Minister for Finance, requesting him to consider a number of changes to the Bill. To date, no response has been received to this letter. I set out the concerns of my union to the Bill and I wish to correct some matters that were referred to in the Seanad debate. My union is adamant that provisions must be made in the legislation for worker directors. The union believes the limit of four directors is far too low for any diverse organisation such as the Ordnance Survey Ireland. My own belief is that the upper and lower limits should be increased by three.
Where the civil service status of OSI staff is being altered by legislation, staff should be given the right to remain with the civil service, either by way of secondment or transfer. My union also believes that the chief boundary surveyor should be brought within the remit of the OSI. It should also be noted that, in the Senate debate, reference was made by a number of speakers to the fact that consultation had taken place with staff and their representatives. This is not the case. In December 1999, the Minister met with unions to announce his intention to alter the status of the OSI. One such meeting was held with officials from his Department, at which the unions outlined their concern, specifically including the requirement for worker directors. The Department cancelled a further meeting planned for March, at 24 hours notice. No explanation or apology was given and no alternative meeting was arranged. No further communication was issued to the union, which forced them to demand a meeting after publication of the Bill. My union believes that adequate consultation has not taken place on this matter. This runs contrary to the partnership model, which appears to be expendable when convenient. Of late, industrial relations in the OSI have deteriorated considerably and staff are now effectively demoralised. In order to improve this difficult climate, it is imperative that a signal is given by statutory provision regarding the worker directors and that staff are guaranteed security of tenure in their jobs in their current locations.
Perhaps the Minister of State has already discussed some of these concerns which I have to bring to his attention in relation to the OSI Sligo regional office.
The OSI has a record of 170 years of dedicated service and the latest technology is now available. The Government may privatise for the sake of change, when it suits, but is there a clear benefit? This Bill is to provide for the establishment of a body to be known as the Ordnance Survey Ireland, to define its functions and to provide for connected matters. The Ordnance Survey has done outstanding work on mapping the country. There are advances now in spatial planning and regional development. Huge population changes are taking place in Sligo and elsewhere but I am concerned that they are not correctly documented. We depend greatly on census figures. More use should be made of local offices. Post offices and local postmen are the best source of information on what is happening on the ground, as a basis for documenting change at local level. Population density reflects migration patterns over a long period. There are substantial changes even since the 1996 census. No urban centre has a catchment population of less than 200,000 and nine centres have populations between 200,000 and 400,000. Sligo has a catchment area population of 235,000 and Castlebar has 206,500.
I called to the Ordnance Survey office in Phoenix Park recently to check out the information on offer on the electronic data system. I asked for the register of Ballymote, on disk, and was given it. I was informed that it was updated and that it was quite accurate. However, when I checked it out, I was astonished to find it incredibly inaccurate. How does this fit in with the concept of added value? We may have the computer technology but is it a matter of "garbage in and garbage out"? It is essential to get the basic data right. It is outrageous to find that we have inaccurate registers. Even the local electoral register is still based on the very same concept as when it was compiled 40 years ago. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, we cannot list the main earners in a household, the dependants and, where possible, list their telephone number. We are dealing with a system that is outdated. It is outrageous to write to someone on a register who has been deceased for three years. That is the case. We are talking about the Ordnance Survey and the new changes and it is important that a register, when published, is totally accurate and that it is updated. If we are depending on a census of population for an update on population changes, it is not good enough.
The new Bill outlines many changes. The section I will watch closely sets out the functions to be performed by the body. The functions are: to maintain and develop the underlying physical structure needed to support mapping applications; create and maintain mapping and related geographic data-bases for the entire State; provide mapping and geographic information to both the public and private sectors; and encourage and promote the benefits of the use of its databases and the development of products, services and markets to meet national and user needs. I would like to know what they are. What are we talking about here? We are talking in parables.
The body's functions are also to advise the Government – that will be a key function – or public bodies on policy and practice on mapping and other related matters; represent the State at international level on matters related to mapping and geographic information; provide necessary technical support for the chief boundary surveyor in delimiting and delineating statutory boundaries; depict place names and ancient features as declared in orders made under the Place-Names (Irish Forms) Act, 1973, and to protect the Government copyright on OSI databases, products and published materials, including those made prior to the established date. Copyright is a huge area. How will the copyright legislation safeguard that? It is important if we are talking of freedom of information. If we are opening up the marketplace, it is important that it is developed as well.
A further OSI function is to conduct its affairs so as to ensure that its revenues are not less than sufficient to meet all proper charges on it. Will we see a huge increase in charges given that we are moving from the protection of the State to private enterprise? Another function is to generate a reasonable portion of its capital needs? How will that be done? A further function is to conduct its business in a cost effective and efficient manner. I agree with that. It is important that we see the role of business in the added value of these services.
Having listened to the debate in recent days, everything has been fairly well covered. I take this opportunity to compliment the staff in the Ordnance Survey who have worked under difficult circumstances and in difficult times. In recent years we have seen major growth with associated mapping problems, and the staff did a good job under difficult circumstances. The reward they are getting from the State is that they are being taken out of the public sector and put into the private sector. There are areas which can go into the public sector and areas which cannot. We could be making a mistake in regard to the Ordnance Survey and perhaps it should be left in the hands of the State.
I have always objected to taking responsibilities from the Dáil and to not providing information to it. We have seen this with the National Roads Authority. If one writes to a Minister about the National Roads Authority, the answer is that the Minister has no responsibility and that the matter is now the responsibility of the National Roads Authority. We will have a debate in this House tonight in which we will discuss it. That authority is not answerable to anybody. I went through each constituency recently and could not see that any member of the National Roads Authority was elected to this House. If they were elected, I do not know for what party they stood. They certainly did not stand for my party or for Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party. Maybe there is a party which I have not seen on the backbenches or on front benches of the House but, by God, they seem to have more power than the Minister and the civil servants, and that is wrong. When elected to this House, we are elected to represent all the people and we should not give away our powers.
Some of the staff have been with the Ordnance Survey for 20 years or more and some have a mine of information. What will happen if some of these people decide they do not want to go into the private sector? Will they be protected by the State? Will their pension rights be protected? Will their future be protected? I know a Bill is to come before the Dáil in relation to that and I hope these people will be rewarded. In the past if those working for Telecom Eireann or other companies had to move two yards down the road or across the road or if they had to implement new work practices, there was a great deal of money involved. Because there is only a small number of people involved in this, they should not be forgotten about. They should be supported and given the respect they deserve. They did a good job in difficult times, some hidden in bunkers because there were not proper facilities for them. I compliment the staff who have done a good job over the years.
Many Members have mentioned new housing estates. My address used to be Carrowbeg Estate and I had to change it. There was Carrowbeg estate lower and Carrowbeg estate upper and there was a Carrowbeg Estate post office. If a letter came from this House, it would go to Carrowbeg post office which was in Newport, although it was for Carrowbeg Westport. The postman would then have to look for Carrowbeg estate upper and Carrowbeg estate lower. A letter which should have been delivered in two days might not arrive for seven days.
Deputy Kenny had information before Deputy Ring.
He had and it was a disadvantage so I changed that. I made sure that situation would not go on. I went back to the old maps and my estate was part of the old Westport House estate and was known as The Paddock. My estate is now called The Paddock, and many people feel that maybe I should be kept in the paddock but I will not be if I can help it.
Nobody on this side of the House would dare suggest that.
We went back to the maps and researched it. We now use the address, The Paddock, and our letters come within a couple of days.
The Ordnance Survey should have a part to play in that with the local authorities. When somebody applies to a local authority for planning permission for a housing estate, the local authority should contact these offices and an agreement should be reached there and then. It should be part of the planning condition that the estate be named immediately and that would stop the "Dallases" and the "Glenroes" and all these daft names. It would save a great deal of confusion.
Many postmen have complained to me over the years and they have two complaints. I know we cannot do anything about one of the complaints in the Bill but we can about the other. They have complained about these place names which they do not know. They believe there should be notification from the State, whether the local authority, the Government or otherwise, when planning permission is given for a housing estate, that the post offices should be notified and that somebody there should make a decision on the name of the estate. That is a reasonable request. The Minister cannot do anything about the other complaint that postmen have with regard to letterboxes. The greatest complaint they have is that there are no letter boxes in houses and they are finding it very difficult to deliver letters, whether letters with good or bad news, cheques or bills. It should be a planning condition that there is a letter box in every house. These men and women have a job to do and they find it difficult enough. There should be some way that these agencies can be brought together.
The Ordnance Survey is being moved into the private sector. If we do that, let us get real and let them have a part to play in the naming of estates. These people have done a good job over the years, particularly when we consider what has happened in this country in the past ten years in terms of development, such as new roads. There is more work for these people and they should get the respect from the State. I hope the Government will protect their rights, including their pensions rights and their Civil Service status because they joined the Civil Service. I listened to Deputy Perry, I read that letter and I spoke to people involved in this. They are upset that nobody has sat down, talked to and listened to them. That is simply because they do not have the numbers of staff that other Departments have. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development or the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources would not be privatised without discussing it with the work force and the unions and listening to their point of view. These people have reasonable complaints and worries. We are all afraid of change. We do not like to see the constituency boundaries changed but we have seen that happen over the years, and the Ordnance Survey Office played a part in that as well in terms of mapping the boundary lines. We think about how such changes affect us. We should think about the staff.
I am not particularly fond of elections either.
We like them if we are successful and if we are not successful we do not like them.
Deputy Perry was right in suggesting that the register of electors should be tied into this. One complaint we all hear again and again at election time relates to the register. The time has come to tie it in with housing estates in terms of planning so that people will be registered. The problem only comes to light when there is an election, when the people say they are not on the register or that the address on the register is not theirs, that it should be Glenroe Road or be Dallas Head or whatever. That is not right. Somebody should decide what name an estate should have. Builders sometimes do not name a development. Local authorities must take some of the blame for that. Naming the development is left to the residents and it can be difficult to get agreement. If there are 25 houses in an estate the residents will give 25 different names.
The naming of an estate should be tied in with the planning and the register. If we did that we would be doing a good day's work given that some of the names of housing estates are not in keeping with this country or with the area where they are located. The names might sound nice now but down the road, when the fad has passed it will not sound right. As Deputy Perry said, we are supposedly in a new era, and yet we have this situation. We have not moved on and I will give two reasons.
Thirty years ago a man with a horse and cart went around and opened up drains and we did not have as much flooding on roads as we have now. Nowadays we have engineers and architects to build these new roads. They build them up to the kerb and with the first shower of rain there are floods all over the place. These people are supposed to have further education. They have honours degrees and are better trained than people were in the past, but we have more floods because drainage work is not done. If one asks an engineer now about drainage work he cannot answer.
The Deputy is rambling a long way from the Bill.
I was always a bit of a rambler. This is not the most exciting Bill and I just wanted to move it along.
I will finish where I started. I do not agree that this should be taken away from the Oireachtas. I do not agree that it should be privatised. I do not agree that any powers should be taken away from this House. Over the past 20 years we have taken too many powers away from this House. We will go before the people very shortly so let me give the Minister some advice. I have been meeting people recently and one message they are giving is that politicians have lost contact with the public. They feel that nobody is listening any more, that Big Brother is watching and that what we have is more a dictatorship than democracy. That is serious and what we need to do now is to return to democracy. I want to be able to put down a Dáil question in relation to whatever mapping must be done and get a reply. If this is privatised, the Minister can say he has no responsibility. There are some Ministers who should not have responsibility and I hope the people will decide that in the near future.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill which is an important Bill in the context of the Ordnance Survey Office. I reiterate and support what my colleague said with regard to semi-State bodies and the removal of accountability to this House. It removes the opportunity of elected Members of this House to question the decisions of semi-State bodies such as the National Roads Authority which, because of its impact in the area of national primary and secondary road development, is a key body for people who live in rural Ireland.
The Oireachtas must look seriously at ways of making semi-State bodies accountable. It is not necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water by having a situation where people in semi-State bodies are not accountable for their actions. Ministers always state that the Houses are responsible for policy, but work carried out by semi-State bodies can have a serious impact on the lives of people. As well as being legislators, we represent people and our ability to obtain information quickly and question the actions of semi-State bodies such the National Roads Authority and now the Ordnance Survey Office is being removed. A method should be devised to reverse that trend and to marry the commercial ethos inherent in the semi-State and commercial sectors with accountability.
I pay tribute to the Ordnance Survey Office on its work over the years. It is a marvellous organisation and has served the State well. It also served the people well prior to the foundation of State. It was established in 1824, some 177 years ago, long before the Famine, and its work commenced long before Griffith's valuation was carried out. It must have been an enormous task to survey properly the country. The role and influence of the Ordnance Survey Office have expanded dramatically over the years, given its information systems and the need for that information. The work it has done in identifying monuments and other archaeological sites over all of the 177 years must be recognised. Without it we could not have a policy of preserving important historical monuments because before something can be preserved we must know what it is and where it is. The Ordnance Survey Office was one of the first to bring to notice the presence of important archaeological sites. I remember when they were just dots on maps and not of much consequence. However, over the years they became very important to us. That is one important role of the Ordnance Survey Office. Allied to that is its historical role in recording development and historical changes in the landscape. It must have an enormous wealth of information which could be tapped by anybody who wants to trace the development of an area from the changes that have taken place.
The Ordnance Survey Office also has a role to play in the legal field, an area that we as legislators must deal with on an ongoing basis. In recent years it has been involved in agriculture, an area in which one would never have suspected it would be involved, It is involved in mapping for the purpose of ensuring income for the agricultural community in the context of area aid, extensification, REPs, EU payments. The Ordnance Survey Office now plays a major role and its information is important in facilitating the operation of these schemes which provide major aspects of the income of the farming community. The Ordnance Survey has been involved in the planning process since it was introduced, which was long after the establishment of the Ordnance Survey. It was probably well over 100 years after the foundation of the Ordnance Survey that its role in planning was introduced. Now its information systems are vital to development and planning throughout the country.
The changes we have seen will probably continue. In the first place, computerisation will radically change the compilation of information. It will also affect the distribution of that information. I hope it will soon be possible for solicitors' offices, planning departments and so forth to dial into the Ordnance Survey and call down maps which they can print in their offices. There should be a way of ensuring that a fee is paid for this service. If one can buy something over the Internet, it should be possible to buy a map from the Ordnance Survey through the same system and pay the necessary fee.
The staff are the organisation's greatest asset. I congratulate the staff on the work they have done quietly and efficiently down through the years. We have heard about the difficulties experienced by the staff. That is probably inevitable. An organisation which is in existence for 177 years must be afraid of change. In every organisation there is a fear of change. Having been involved in industrial relations for 20 years, I can understand why there cannot be anything other than a fear of change. However, there is a way of managing change and of communicating to people to explain what is happening, what will happen and what the management and the Department are unsure about. Information eases people's concerns. In this case, the personnel are concerned about their future and about promotion.
Last Monday I met the staff of Aer Lingus in Shannon. One of their biggest concerns was that they were learning about their fate from the press. The most important responsibility of management is to communicate with staff and to inform them about what is happening. I asked the Minister a question today about communicating to the work force the changes that are occurring in Aer Lingus. Her reply was that the union would be kept fully informed. That reply is not good enough. It is the duty of management in an organisation to communicate directly with staff. They are the management's staff, not the trade union's. It is necessary to communicate with the official union but there is a clear responsibility on management to communicate directly with the staff on all aspects of the changes and difficulties that are likely to be experienced.
The IMPACT survey was most interesting. IMPACT represents almost three quarters of the staff in the Ordnance Survey. The staff were asked if they wished to retain their individual service status. A total of 137 said "yes" and there were two spoilt votes. The overwhelming majority wished to retain their Civil Service status. Have the implications of the changed status been fully communicated to the staff and, if so, why are so many people not happy with the change? I can understand their unhappiness if the situation has not been fully communicated to them because that would be the fear of the unknown. That is human nature.
They were also asked if they agreed with the decision to change the status of the Ordnance Survey. Twenty seven said they did while 114 answered that they did not. When asked if they had been significantly involved in the change of status programme, 135 out of 144 members said they were not significantly involved. Their concern about the change is directly attributable to their non-involvement in developing the change and the new approach.
I urge the workers to examine the issue carefully and to embrace change. Change can be positive. I worked in the exposed commercial private sector for many years as an executive. It can be insecure and difficult but it can also be challenging, exciting and provide great opportunities. Things change much faster in the commercial and semi-commercial areas than in the Civil Service. That is probably the result of an historical approach which must change but I will not go into that when discussing this Bill. It is vital that communication take place and understanding be established between those who are involved in introducing the changes and the staff who must accommodate those changes.
Decentralisation has been mentioned. The Government has a clear policy on decentralisation but it is obviously having difficulties with the policy. Most Members believe decentralisation will not take place before the next general election. I do not know what the situation is but I have lobbied strongly for the decentralisation of a Department to the mid-west, between Newcastle West, Listowel and Kilrush. There could be a substantial movement of staff to those areas with the necessary promotional opportunities. Ease of travel between the three towns would enable a comprehensive decentralisation to the area.
The issue of naming estates has been raised. I have been concerned about this for some time. I heard an excellent lecture at the Joyce school in Kilfinane, County Limerick, twelve months ago on how we name our estates. We should discuss this subject further. I dispute the Glenroe matter with Deputy Ring because there is an old parish, which dates back to St. Patrick's era or before it, called Glenroe in County Limerick. It is a good old Irish name meaning the red glen or An Gleann Rua. He is right, however, about the manor courts and so forth. I had better not name all of them.
Limerick County Council opened a new council housing estate in Rathkeale a couple of months ago. It was named Slí na Mílaoise. That is not a traditional name but it is a beautiful one which means "the way of the millennium". It was an excellent choice. We should also try to name estates for the townland on which the estate is built. It is a pity to lose the names of our townlands. I presume this information is available in the Ordnance Survey archives.
My final point relates to the value of the archives of the Ordnance Survey. It would be interesting to know the extent of those archives. Many of the place names we are losing are surely preserved for the researchers of the future in the archives of the Ordnance Survey. These archives will present an opportunity in five, ten, 15, 20 or 50 years for people to check place names and rename estates, if they wish to do so. As I said recently to the residents of an estate who were unhappy with the name given to it by the builder, the names of estates are not set in stone. They can be changed by approaching the local authority, if there is agreement within the community to rename them. Estates have been renamed. Many residents who are critical of the names of estates often do not realise it is possible to rename them.
As this debate develops, there will be much more questioning of the English type names, such as Sherwood Manor, given to estates. There are estates containing the word "manor" or the word "court" where there is no manor or court. The debate on place names has developed in the past two or three years. There will be an opportunity to check the records of the Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry to identity traditional place names and for estates to be renamed. I am sure many will check those records in the future in the same way as we have re-examined our music and, to some extent, our language. I hope we will do more of this. I am sure we will return to the traditional place names and embrace what was best in them and re-examine their use.
I welcome the Bill and I am glad I had an opportunity to speak on it.
Notwithstanding the comment of my colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, last week that this was not the most interesting of Bills, the number of Deputies who have spoken on it seems to belie that view.
The debate on the Bill contained much that was of interest and raised several important issues to which I need to respond and attempt to clarify. Although most Deputies indicated their generous support for the Bill, some questioned the necessity to change the status of the Ordnance Survey from a Civil Service office to that of a State body. In response I can say without any doubt that the change is necessary to ensure a successful future for the OSI. This view was arrived at by the interim board of the OSI, an independent, well balanced body which comprises a wide range of representatives, including employers, trade unions, map sellers and users.
The need for change ultimately arises from the new technology adopted by the OSI and other national mapping agencies, which has transformed the business of the OSI from simply making paper maps to that of a provider of geographic data in digital form. This technology has resulted in the emergence of the geographic information industry which is faced with meeting ever increasing customer demands for new products and services.
In the global context, this is an important business with an annual turnover of tens of billions of pounds. As the leading player in the geographic information market in Ireland, the OSI should be well placed to take full advantage of the potential to develop these markets. It cannot do so, however, as long as it remains within the Civil Service. This is not because of any lack of ability or flexibility in civil servants, but because the OSI lacks the statutory framework to enable it to participate fully in the geographic information market.
Among other matters, the provisions in the Bill are designed to ensure that in relation to purely commercial projects, the OSI will not be open to any serious accusation that it is deriving an unfair advantage over its competitors from its public sector status. In other words, this legislation will enable the OSI to operate as a full player on the same terms in the geographic information market as its competitors.
Deputies may be surprised to hear that competition is not a hypothetical challenge to the OSI, but a very real part of the everyday environment in which it operates. Despite its leading position and ability to protect its data, this competition is growing all the time. There are no barriers to entry in the geographic information business and, therefore, the OSI must stay at the forefront of mapping technology and continually develop its products and services to enable it to be always in a position to meet the demands of what is a rapidly changing competitive environment.
If the OSI were to remain within the Civil Service, it would continue to produce high quality mapping for the entire State in the public interest, but its ability to continue to progress and develop and achieve its full commercial potential using its own data would be seriously limited. The OSI would have to watch from the sidelines while its competitors made substantial profits from products and services derived from the data which it had produced. Accordingly, because the Bill will enable the OSI to continue to develop new mapping and geographic services as well as to make these available to meet society's needs, its enactment will not only be in the public interest, it will also be very much in the interests of the OSI staff. The many opportunities emerging in the geographic information market combined with the new freedoms provided for in the Bill point to a bright future for the OSI and its staff.
One of the most consistent themes in this debate is that throughout the period the Bill was being considered, communication with the staff was inadequate with the result that they are unsure of their future and unhappy with the details of the proposals. Deputy McGrath referred to the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among IMPACT staff in the OSI. On the face of it, the responses show the negative attitude of the staff to any change in the OSI. Having read the questionnaire, however, I can agree with the Deputy's comment about leading questions. I am, therefore, not altogether surprised at the answers. Nevertheless, the questionnaire indicated the existence of a continuing degree of concern by staff about the changes proposed in the Bill. This is an important issue and requires a detailed response from me.
In February 2000, shortly after the Government decided to draft a Bill providing for the establishment of Ordnance Survey Ireland as a State body, the Minister for Finance and officials of his Department met Ordnance Survey Ireland staff representatives to discuss details of the proposed Bill. Following this meeting technical difficulties arose in the context of the drafting of the Bill which took a long time to resolve. Because there were no substantial developments to report to staff representatives during this period, no meeting with them was arranged. When these issues were settled, however, another meeting was held at official level with Ordnance Survey staff representatives and this took place last March. During the intervening period, however, management in the OSI kept staff representatives at local level informed on a regular basis on the status of the Bill. When it became clear that the technical problems arising in relation to the Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill had been resolved, management in OSI began an information campaign to explain the content of the Bill to staff. OSI management also arranged a series of information seminars at headquarters and in the regional offices to which all staff were invited. This campaign included lunchtime seminars in head office and talks in the regional offices, all of which were well attended. An information circular was sent to all staff in April which was well received. Updates on the progress of the Bill through the Seanad were also sent to all staff. These talks and seminars have continued to date.
I want to refer to written representations sent to the Minister for Finance by IMPACT earlier in the year, which outlined in detail many of the concerns of staff about the Bill. A formal response to these issues was given by the Minister on 7 June 2001. In his reply the Minister addressed and set out in detail his views on each of the concerns raised by IMPACT.
Is a copy of the Minister of State's script available?
I do not have one. I am replying to the debate and points raised by Deputies. This will be on the record. I have no problem with the Deputy being made aware of any information I am giving. I welcome that he is present and thank him for returning to hear my reply.
At the end of the letter the Minister expressed the hope that he had provided some reassurance about these concerns and issued an invitation to a meeting at any date with his officials to discuss any outstanding matters. There was no response to an invitation to such a meeting.
In addition to the above staff meetings, OSI management and trade unions have been meeting as part of departmental council to formally discuss issues arising from the OSI's proposed new status and the related organisational and staffing changes. Following an agreement between OSI management and trade unions a consultant has been engaged to undertake a formal review of industrial relations in the OSI. This work is under way and should lead to an enhanced industrial relations climate in the OSI.
Staff innovation groups have recently been established in the OSI to consider what skills and work could be developed for the future. In addition, the remit of the groups is to innovate and experiment in relation to product development and explore how to improve processes and systems. These groups, consisting of staff from a number of functional areas throughout the organisation, are being co-ordinated by a group of senior line managers. In the past week, however, there have been further communications with staff. A preliminary meeting was held with IMPACT staff to discuss an appropriate organisational structure for the OSI after establishment day. It is likely that an independent facilitator will be appointed to help ensure these talks will be successful. The meeting followed the conclusion of initial discussions with officials from the Department of Finance and OSI management.
In addition, I visited the OSI on Tuesday to familiarise myself with certain matters raised in the House during the Second Stage debate. I conveyed to staff representatives that I understand there are concerns about the proposed changes. I listened to the concerns and reassured staff about my support and that of the Government now and in the future. In response, staff members clearly outlined the main issues of concern to them and summarised how they propose they should be addressed. I dealt with each of the issues in the way I am outlining to the House. I pointed out that some of the more important issues would be faced by OSI staff, even if no change in the status of the office was proposed. I placed a great deal of emphasis on the bright future the Bill promises for the OSI. Based on my experiences with the Office of Public Works, the staff of the OSI will find that they are at least as good as anything in the private sector and possibly better, as a trade union representative pointed out to me.
I thank all the trade union members whom I met yesterday for their courtesy and the frankness of the exchanges between us. It was a fruitful exercise from my point of view and I hope from that of the staff of the OSI also. I want to thank the director and management of the OSI for facilitating the meeting.
Many of the difficulties would not have arisen if the meeting had been held a few months ago.
I outlined that the invitation was there, but had not been taken up. When I took charge of this Bill I felt it was necessary and worthwhile for me to do what I have just explained.
I will now address the main concerns raised by Deputies in the course of the debate and OSI staff representatives yesterday. The staff's main concern centres on the adequacy of the provisions of the Bill to protect their terms of employment. I repeat and re-emphasise that the purpose of section 15 of the Bill is to provide specific statutory guarantees that the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the new body, including tenure and pay, will not be less favourable than those prevailing immediately before establishment day. There was a great deal of discussion on this matter yesterday. The provisions mean that all members of the staff of the OSI will have a statutory right to stay in their jobs until they reach maximum retirement age. There is no question of the privatisation of the OSI. It should be quite clear to the House, given the structure of the Bill and what I have said, that the Government has taken a particular view of the future of the OSI. Members of staff have been reassured and it was not really an issue in yesterday's discussions.
In the light of my earlier comments regarding the increasing competitive challenges faced by the OSI, it is relevant to speculate as to the prospects for OSI workers were they to remain within the Civil Service, with limited opportunities to benefit from the data they produce. As I have already said, the Bill offers OSI staff the prospect of a much brighter future. It gives statutory guarantees for the security of employment and superannuation. It also ensures the Exchequer will pay for public interest mapping services. Finally, it enables the OSI to expand and enhance its role, which will enable staff to make an essential contribution to both the development of the geographic information industry and the future development of the country.
Deputies McGrath and McDowell referred to the possibility of future reductions in the OSI workforce. This concern may relate to the expected completion of the revised rural mapping project about three years from now. My expectation and that of OSI management, however, is that new projects will emerge to replace the rural mapping project. This expectation is based on the fact that, by then, the OSI will have a fully up-to-date set of mapping data, to be used by it as the basis for developing a new range of value added projects.
Another important issue of concern to OSI staff relates to eligibility for interdepartmental competitions after establishment day. This is of particular concern to the relatively few OSI staff who are in general service grades and consider their career prospects as administrators will be limited if they remain in an organisation focused overwhelmingly on technical production. I do not believe the career prospects for these grades will be as limited in the new OSI as is the case at present. The reorientation of the OSI that will take place as part of its new role will require new structures, which will result in opportunities for staff that do not exist at present. I fully expect that the usual arrangements whereby staff remain eligible to participate in Civil Service competitions after establishment day will also apply in the case of the OSI. I wish to add that negotiations are ongoing between OSI management officials, my Department and OSI staff representatives on this issue.
Apart from the question of eligibility for interdepartmental Civil Service competitions after establishment day, the related issue of the transfer of OSI staff to other areas of the Civil Service was raised. As we know in this House, this is a complex issue for a civil servant who wishes to change either Department or grade stream. In every such case there are difficult hurdles to be jumped before a transfer can take place. The first of these is that there must be a vacancy in the receiving Department, the second is that the management of the Department must be willing to accept the person being transferred and, third, the trade unions involved need to be satisfied that the transfer does not block promotion outlets for existing staff or affect their seniority. We are familiar with the complexity of this issue. An additional hurdle in the case of OSI technical staff is that they would need to be recertified to suitable general service grades. This issue is decided independently by the Civil Service Commissioners. Notwithstanding these constraints, my Department is prepared to discuss options in relation to whatever scope might exist on this issue.
Deputies McGrath, Brian Lenihan and Joe Higgins asked that the Bill include provision for worker directors. During the course of today's debate, many other Deputies raised the issue again. It was also the subject of discussion with OSI staff yesterday. The reason there is no pro vision in the Bill for a worker director is so we can ensure there will always be flexibility in the configuration of the board. At any given time, the board will have the mixture of talent and experience needed to deal successfully with the challenges it will face. It would not be desirable, therefore, to tie the hands of any future Minister for Finance by putting into legislation a provision that any group or groups will have to be represented on the board of the OSI. There is a trade union representative on the interim board and there is no reason a staff representative could not be appointed to the first or subsequent board of the new body. As we live in an age of partnership, this is a sensible approach. A specific provision was made for trade union representatives on the interim board and I see no reason that cannot continue.
Why not put it in the legislation?
It is not in the legislation for the reasons I have outlined. The Deputy would hold the same view if he was in my position. I do not want to tie the hands of any future Minister for Finance.
The workers are an integral part of the OSI and it is very important to them that they be represented.
I agree that they are an integral part of the OSI and made that clear when speaking to the staff yesterday. The issue will be dealt with in the manner I have outlined to the House. While I cannot, obviously, make a decision on the composition of the first board of the new OSI, any decision in this regard is likely to take account of the importance of staff issues in the transition from Civil Service status to that of a State body. Whether the board contains a worker representative at any given time, I envisage that the staff will be represented in the sub-board structure, such as sub-committees, a number of which have already been established in the context of partnership. Structures will be further strengthened and developed in the future to ensure, as far as possible, OSI management and the board will always be in close touch with the views of OSI staff on important organisational and business issues.
Several Deputies raised the possibility that the OSI might be decentralised. This is also a matter of concern to the staff of the body. As I mentioned on 9 October, it is acknowledged that the premises of the OSI in the Phoenix Park are not ideal for a modern mapping organisation. From what I observed yesterday, the spread of the buildings and the configuration of the premises are not suitable. The mapping production process is spread over several separate buildings. I added that the question of the relocation of the OSI's headquarters in the Phoenix Park will be decided in the context of the Government's decentralisation programme. While I cannot pre-empt any Government decision on the matter, it is reasonable to say that in arriving at its decision, the specialised and technical nature of the work carried out by OSI staff, in contrast to the work of most other Civil Service Departments and Offices, will be taken into account.
As with decentralisation, the future location and status of OSI's regional offices are not matters that arises in the Bill. However, as Deputies and OSI staff have identified this as a matter of concern to them, there is a need to address it. I reiterate that every regional office makes a valuable contribution to the work of OSI in that each carries out all mapping stages in a digital environment, using state of the art equipment. The offices also have specialised tasks, for example, the Tuam office undertakes geo-directory work while the Ennis office looks after aerial photography from nearby Shannon.
There are no plans or proposals to change the regional office status of any of the Ordnance Survey's regional offices. Rather, there is an ongoing programme throughout all Ordnance Survey regional offices to update technology to ensure that they, along with head office, remain at the leading edge in the provision of mapping. The regional offices make an important contribution to the work of OSI and they will continue to do so after establishment day.
I dealt with the main issues raised by Deputies and the OSI staff. However, I also wish to refer to the proposals in the Bill to allow OSI to establish subsidiary companies as this subject was raised by Deputy McDowell. Deputy McGrath also referred to this matter. The reason subsidiaries are included in the Bill is to provide a mechanism for the new body to engage in purely commercial activities in a manner that is transparently separate from its public interest functions. The subsidiaries will not take existing work from OSI staff, but instead will be engaged in new projects that, in turn, will underpin and increase the demand for the high quality mapping data which the staff of OSI will continue to produce.
An important role for OSI which I did not already mention is that of supporting the development of the information society. The information society is an essential element in maintaining Ireland's competitive position and is based on transforming data into information. OSI has the key role of developing the basic data to support the building of a national spatial infrastructure. This was referred to in many different guises by Deputies during the debate. Work is already under way in the Department of the Taoiseach on developing a national spatial strategy. This will be built on OSI data and a draft paper on the requirements for spatial data information in Ireland is being prepared.
In its new status as a State body, the way OSI does its business will have to change. This will present a challenge for all the staff of OSI. As I said earlier, even if its status remained the same, OSI would still have to face many challenges, but it would be much less able to deal with them with out the proposed changes. These challenges were well summarised recently by the Taoiseach in his address to the euro-geographics general assembly in Dublin when he asked the representatives of the European mapping authorities who were present if they would remain simply mapping providers or if they would become information providers, supporting the framework for international geographical spatial information and infrastructural initiatives.
In meeting this challenge, OSI can draw on its considerable strengths, not least of which are the professionalism and commitment of its staff. Progress has already been made towards preparing OSI for its new role. The Minister for Finance has, over the past year or so, sanctioned new management posts in all the key areas in the organisation, including human resources, financial management and accounting, corporate services and business management and sales. As a result, work is well under way in these key areas to prepare for the coming age.
Deputy Connaughton expressed a concern that the Bill would lead to an end to cheap maps. However, computerisation has resulted in the price of large scale maps used in planning and land registering being almost halved. It is already going in the opposite direction. The aim of OSI's policy of establishing agencies is to expand sales and thus reduce unit costs of maps. This is already happening. The service agreement provided in the Bill allows the Minister for Finance to set terms and conditions for the pricing of OSI products. This mechanism, therefore, can be a means of ensuring that users are not overcharged.
Deputy Connaughton also stated that some areas of the country were not mapped. I was surprised at this statement because my understanding is that there is full coverage of the country within the combined mapping scales.
Dating back to the last century.
I am referring to the current situation. Deputy Noel Ahern was critical of the decision to close the print department of OSI. Management of OSI has been concerned for some time about the efficiency and economic operation of the print department. The matter was examined in detail by a joint management/union sub-committee of a departmental council earlier this year. Although no agreement was reached on the future of the print department, management took a decision, in the overall interests of economy and efficiency, to close it. Substantial investment in new equipment would have been required to continue the operation, with no guarantee of improved efficiencies.
Deputy Burke expressed concern that OSI's copyright was frequently breached. The Bill provides in section 4(2)(i) that one of OSI's functions is to protect Government copyright on OSI records. Structures have been in place for some time to ensure the enforcement of this copyright. It is envisaged that these structures will be reinforced to ensure that copyright is rigorously protected. There was a major case recently
where OSI recovered a significant sum –
more than £200,000 – in pursuance of copyright infringements.
Deputy Deenihan said that historical maps are most important in research and he asked where they were located. I am sure the House will be happy to learn that they are deposited in the National Archives. This suggestion was made but it is already the position. All maps that are not needed for day to day work are being transferred to the National Archives.
Deputy Deenihan also referred to inaccuracies in boundaries. He made the point that they are drawn at various scales. Smaller scales have some inaccuracies while larger scale maps have higher accuracy. However, one cannot compare small and large scale maps because they contain different degrees of information. Large scale maps have much higher accuracy than small scale maps and they cannot be compared. One will get more information in the larger scale map.
The Deputy said there are only six field workers in the country. This is inaccurate because an average of 25 field workers are working at any given time. The Deputy also said preferential treatment should be given to maps that will be supplied to schools. There are substantial discounts for maps required for first and second level schools. Preferential treatment is also given to third level institutions in the form of making available to them special digital map data sets at minimal cost.
It is obvious that the enactment of this legislation will enable OSI and its staff to achieve its full potential in the geographic information industry as well as provide fundamental support to important areas of economic and social development, thereby making an important contribution to the further improvement of the quality of life for us all. I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank the director, management and staff of OSI and my officials in the Department of Finance. I also thank the unions for the courteous meeting we held in recent days which I, and I hope they, found very informative. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
I understand it is proposed to refer the Bill to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service.