Deputy Boylan was in possession and he has 18 minutes remaining.
Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The Ordnance Survey office has been based in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, for 175
years or so. I did not have any difficulty gaining access to the Ordnance Survey Office. However, it is practically impossible to get to or from other offices in Dublin, such as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in Kildare Street. People who want to do business there have experienced great difficulty with traffic congestion. I always found that access to the Ordnance Survey Office in the Phoenix Park was easy and I did not receive any complaints about it from constituents. People from all parts of the country can access it because of its proximity to the M50 motorway.
The staff in the Ordnance Survey Office are not only professional but helpful. The increase in work as a result of land division and the creation of land parcels has caused its own problems. There is a lack of sufficient staff to deal with the ongoing mapping problems. It is not unusual for six, nine or 12 months to elapse between an application being made and an applicant receiving the final map. Queries might be raised after a number of months and representations would be made by constituents about the delays. I am not blaming the staff but the fact that the office is understaffed. This extra work has been created as a result of the sub-division of land and the sale of sites for developments. It is important that this work is done properly because, if it is not, it can create enormous difficulties and lead to litigation. The professionalism of the staff is not in question.
I am puzzled about the Minister's decision to privatise an important State function without consulting the staff, recognising the commitment they have given and the role they have played, protecting their rights as civil servants and outlining their role in the new system he proposes to set up, which has not been clearly spelt out. I have received a number of telephone calls since I spoke on this issue last week from people who are puzzled, worried and annoyed about the situation. This process is ongoing and slow-moving, like many other things in this country, and the fact that people are annoyed does not help them to deliver the type of service we expect. We do not want people to spend their time looking over their shoulder and wondering about their position. If we want to get the best results from staff, we must ensure they are reasonably comfortable in their jobs and that they can get on with their day's work.
Has the Minister spelt out where decentralisation will occur or are the locations up for grabs? Will Ministers be able to say they want an office moved to their constituencies? I am glad the Minister of State is shaking his head, which means it will not happen. The Minister owes it to the people in the Ordnance Survey Office to clarify this situation and to allow them to get on with their work. Extra staff are necessary as the Ordnance Survey Office is greatly understaffed. It may be difficult to get people because this is an expert field. Training will be required to help people in the areas of land mapping and site visits.
I want to place on the record my satisfaction with the work the Ordnance Survey Office has done. The staff have always been helpful when I, as a public representative, made representations to them. Any time I called to the office the staff were courteous and professional. We cannot throw that away in the interests of privatising something which is not a commercial service. It is a State service which is time-consuming but which must be done well by staff who understand the work they are doing.
May I share my time with Deputy Belton?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill and the Minister of State's speech suggest decentralisation. We have heard about decentralisation over the past three years. Approximately 112 towns were put on red alert by this Government.
Approximately 150.
That is another example of the way the Government has conducted its business for the past four and a half years. It is called spin doctoring.
It is called democracy.
I ask the Deputy to address the Chair.
I did address the Chair. I did not refer to any individual in the Chamber. Am I allowed to proceed?
Yes.
I thank you. This Government has spent the past four and a half years on red alert as a result of spin doctoring. No other Government has relied so much on shadow and less on substance since the foundation of the State. It has avoided every possible issue because if it agreed on any issue, it turned out to be a shambles, as we saw on a few occasions when it did not have another option. We have seen the Tánaiste sulking for days on end. That is the record of this Government.
When I read this Bill, I think of decentralisation. However, the Government does not have any intention of decentralising anything. Approximately 150 towns, as the Minister of State said, were put on red alert and each town was competing against each other. Is that good government? I would like the Minister of State to tell me what decentralisation means in this context because he mentioned it in his speech.
As regards the Ordnance Survey Office, no section of a Department can operate without staff. The Minister of State knows that the staff of the Ordnance Survey Office is aggrieved, upset and annoyed. I want the Minister of State to allay the fears and concerns of the loyal staff who have operated in the office for many years and who have a long tradition of service, although not in the best circumstances as the Minister of State admitted. That is one of the reasons he wants to change the headquarters of the Ordnance Survey Office. Some of the loyal staff have retired. The staff feel the Minister of State is introducing this Bill without any concern for them. They have not received any answers to their questions and the union, on their behalf, has not got any satisfaction from the Department. The Minister of State should allay their fears about losing their Civil Service status. I want the Minister of State to address that. I also want him to discuss their concerns about the loss of the option to transfer to another branch of the Civil Service. I want the Minister to answer that question. I also want him to allay the fears concerning the Government's policy on decentralisation. It seems there was no such policy. Decentralisation was just a word given to the spin doctors who were told to run with it for a couple of weeks to keep everybody happy. At one stage, the Tánaiste said 10,000 jobs would be transferred out of Dublin. That is a fact, although it is hard to believe that two and a half years ago a Minister announced that 10,000 jobs would be transferred outside Dublin. There has not been a word about it since. If one mentions that to any member of the Government now, including the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, they look amazed. The Minister of State is asking himself whether he is dreaming. Did he think this up? That is the policy of the Government, yet nothing has been done about it. They have been spin-doctoring again. Shadow, not substance, is the policy of this Government.
In my town there is a branch of the Ordnance Survey whose staff, in common with their colleagues elsewhere, want to know if they will be allowed to transfer or avail of early retirement in the event of those branch offices closing down. That is another question the Minister will have to answer.
I have posed three pertinent questions for the Minister who is responsible for the Ordnance Survey. He introduced this Bill, yet he took his eye off the ball, which in this case is the staff. The Minister and the Government must allay the fears of the loyal, capable and experienced staff who have kept the Ordnance Survey going over the years. He must answer those questions clearly for the House.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Kelleher.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the initiatives in the Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, including the transformation of the Ordnance Survey into a State body. Since the establishment of the Ordnance Survey some 177 years ago, a vast amount of work has been done by that body in preparing maps and other documents for legislative, legal and other purposes, including the transfer of land and other property. The Ordnance Survey has accomplished a monumental task very well in collating all the relevant documentation and other data. In the past ten to 15 years, the operation of the Ordnance Survey has undergone massive change given the advent of the technological age. It has moved in a relatively short space from hand-drawn mapping to computerised digital processes. Mapping instrumentation employed by Ordnance Survey staff from the early 19th century continued in use through most of the 20th century but nowadays that has all changed with the advent of new information technology.
As recently as ten years ago, it was difficult to obtain detailed maps for property transfers, both in rural and urban areas. Today, however, following the establishment of Ordnance Survey agencies throughout the country one can obtain maps within minutes, provided one has the relevant documentation, including folio numbers.
One of the main objects of the Bill is the establishment of a new body to deal with Ordnance Survey matters. The four main operational categories of the present Ordnance Survey are: the updating and maintenance of the framework on which national mapping is based and on which many industries, such as construction, survey, transport and air navigation, depend; a programme to complete a new mapping infrastructure for rural Ireland in the short-term; an ongoing maintenance and development programme to ensure that urban, rural, and tourism and leisure mapping databases are up to date; developing a marketing and sales function to ensure that products and services are suitably developed to meet the ongoing and anticipated needs of public and private customers.
The Bill provides that the general function of Ordnance Survey Ireland will be to continue to provide the national mapping service in the State, and that it will operate in the public interest by creating and maintaining definitive maps and geological information of the State. For the first time, the Bill contains a detailed listing of the tasks that are necessary for the Ordnance Survey to provide its public interest role. It is important to place such tasks on a statutory basis because various arms of the State are legally dependent on the Ordnance Survey's services. For example, over the years one has heard of various court cases concerning rights of way and, while the position of Ordnance Survey Ireland was taken as being definitive, it is no harm to place it on a statutory basis now.
Generations of workers in the Ordnance Survey have accomplished a huge amount of work since its inception in 1824. When we purchase maps today, whether they are obtained for planning permission purposes or conveyancing, we can see all the detail that appears, including monuments. The Heritage Service, Dúchas, has been involved in upgrading information on our national monuments. The Ordnance Survey material dates back to original maps created in the 19th century and even earlier, including elements dating from our medieval history. A huge amount of work has been accomplished by Ordnance Survey staff over the years, who have always been dedicated to ensuring the provision of proper services, including up to date mapping. In the 1820s, it must have been an enormous task to set about creating this amount of detailed information. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who created the first Ordnance Survey maps because when people wish to study the history of their localities they can now refer to those early maps. In debating this Bill, it is only right to pay tribute to those who put so much effort and dedication into their task.
The Bill sets out to put the Ordnance Survey on a long-term, commercially viable footing. In the short-term, however, some State money will have to be pumped into it to ensure that it will remain viable. I note from the Bill that Ordnance Survey Ireland may be required to pay a dividend to the Exchequer, if that becomes necessary. It is certainly no harm that OSI should become a viable State body, competing to provide a wide variety of services. That is the central message of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill. I also hope to see a continuation of the service which OSI has provided for the past 177 years, particularly the vast improvements which have taken place in the past ten years or so due to technological developments and which have made information available almost at the touch of a button. I have no reason to believe this service will not continue, and I hope it does. I pay tribute to all who worked in the Ordnance Survey over the past 177 years for their dedication.
The information available on computer in most Ordnance Survey offices comprises current maps. It would be helpful if the original maps dating from the early 19th century were also available in computerised format. Such computerised maps would be vital for archaeologists, public representatives and others dealing in planning and other issues. I know this is the case with respect to some maps, but it should be the case as regards all Ordnance Survey maps.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, for bringing it before the House. This is worthwhile legislation which is long overdue.
I welcome the Bill. Ordnance Survey Ireland has made a significant impact since its inception 177 years ago. The previous speaker raised the important issue of the preservation of heritage which has been overlooked for many years. Ordnance Survey Ireland's mapping systems have enabled us to preserve many monuments which may have been lost to time, decay and progress. The fact that such monuments were positioned on maps allowed us to identify and preserve them. This is an important point and I pay tribute to the staff of OSI who were involved in the mapping and detailing of Ireland over all those years.
Times change and things move on and so must Ordnance Survey Ireland. The advent of technology and pressures and competition from organisations outside the State which could also carry out its functions make it imperative that OSI is put on a more commercial footing and is allowed to use the mapping expertise it has built up over many years to operate in the commercial world and to sell its products, services and expertise. This Bill will remove OSI from the aegis of the Civil Service and give it the freedom to sell its wares. I thank the staff for their efforts in the past and wish them luck in the future. I hope this enabling legislation will allow OSI to flourish, marketing itself as an experienced mapping organisation.
Under this Bill, OSI will continue to fulfil its traditional role of providing mapping services for the administrative, legislative, infrastructural and other needs of the State as it has done so effectively for the past 177 years. At present this role falls into four main operational categories. First, the updating and maintenance of the framework on which national mapping is based and on which many industries such as construction, surveying, transport and air navigation depend. OSI is an integral part of planning in the context of the national development plan and the ongoing development of our infrastructure. This highlights the impact which OSI has on a daily basis.
The second operational category involves a programme to complete a new mapping infrastructure for rural Ireland in the short-term, an ongoing maintenance and development programme to ensure that urban, rural, tourism and leisure mapping databases are kept up to date and developing a marketing and sales function to ensure that products and services are suitably developed to meet the ongoing and anticipated needs of public and private customers.
The Bill provides that the general functions of OSI will continue to be to provide the national mapping service in the State and that it will operate in the public interest by creating and maintaining the definitive maps and geographical information of the State. The Bill sets out for the first time a detailed list of the tasks necessary for OSI to fulfil its public interest role. Accordingly, OSI will be required to continue to map all areas, including those which do not provide a commercial return on its activities. This is an important issue as some areas will not provide commercial returns. It is important that such activities continue and I welcome this provision.
There was also a concern that OSI's loss-making activities would be a burden on the Exchequer. However, the Bill provides that OSI, when engaging in commercial activities, may do so through subsidiary companies with limited liability set up under the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1999. Any capital necessary for such companies will not come from the public purse, but will be raised in the marketplace on the basis of the commercial merits of the projects concerned. In short, there will be no cross-subsidisation of commercial activities by the Exchequer in respect of capital or running costs.
Measures to ensure there is no cross-subsidisation by the Exchequer of potential commercial activities by OSI are an important feature of the Bill. These include clear statements of OSI's public interest functions, the requirement of the service agreement with the Minister for Finance to deliver the specified public interest outputs in return for Exchequer money and provisions to establish separate limited companies which will operate on a purely commercial basis for any commercial activities.
In addition, OSI will operate transparent accounting practices to identify commercial activities which it will separate from non-commercial activities. It will also implement a fair and transparent pricing policy which will ensure that OSI's basic data is available to competitors in the marketplace on the same terms and conditions as those which apply to its subsidiaries.
I welcome the great strides which OSI has made to prepare itself for the future. Advances in technology have been made possible by the substantial sums allocated to OSI in recent years to ensure that it uses the most up-to-date techniques in mapping. For example, OSI is leading the way in the use of satellite positioning and is in the process of implementing a network of permanently operating global positioning system receivers. This system is expected to be operational by early next year and will be controlled from OSI's computer headquarters.
Similarly, OSI uses advanced in-house geographical information systems used to store all collectable digital mapping data and to supply, edit and manage such data. It is anticipated that supplying GIS users with digital mapping products will be a major area of business growth. It is important that we give OSI the flexibility which was not possible heretofore under its former structure. This is a positive development. OSI has a wealth of experience and it must be allowed to flourish in the commercial world by selling that experience.
There are always concerns when change takes place. Some are uncertain of the effect this legislation will have on OSI. However, I am confident the staff will adjust. All those involved in drafting the legislation engaged in consultations and I am confident the staff will be able to move forward with confidence and pride, knowing their future is secure because of the expertise which has been built up over many years.
I compliment the Minister of State who has put much work into this legislation and into negotiations with all involved. Ordnance Survey Ireland has given a great service to the State. I am confident that in the years ahead it will continue to give a great service and ensure its major role of mapping is not lost when it moves into the commercial world. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House and wish the staff and everybody involved the best of luck in the years ahead.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for his indulgence and the dissemination of information which I have not yet had time to appreciate fully.
The first time I climbed Nephin mountain in County Mayo, I saw the pillar at the top – the trigonometrical point. When one looks north from there one can see Barnesmore Gap south of Derry, the Erris peninsula, the Atlantic to the west and a full sweep brings one south over Galway into Clare and east across the plains of Mayo into Roscommon and Galway. The Ordnance Survey question that used to be asked in the intermediate certificate was of great interest to hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes a map of a mountain in one's own county or region would be included and one might know it very well. The people from 1820 who carried out the surveys of Ireland are owed an enormous debt of gratitude for determining every boreen, pathway, ditch and drain. They noted every grove of trees, wood, forest and swamp, and every crannóg, human dwelling, village and town was recorded. That has evolved since the 1820s.
Some of the hand-drawn maps of landlords' estates from the 1830s to the 1850s are incredibly detailed. The persons who carried out those mapping contracts had a powerful commitment to the work in hand and their work has lasted. When watching the Discovery Channel one can see what can be done from Cheyenne Mountain in the United States. There is a bunker built there, half a mile under a mountain of granite, which has been designed to withstand a nuclear attack and a large number of communications satellites are controlled from there. Radar imaging satellites can instantly give an exact and detailed picture of every aspect of any area on the globe, irrespective of weather conditions. The work that was begun by hand by the first person to put a trigonometrical point on Nephin mountain, to what is happening today, is part of a powerful social history of this country.
I agree that the Bill is necessary; it is long overdue. It is fair to say that permanency of employment does not apply to any job anymore. Given circumstances that are outside one's control, what might appear to be a permanent position – or one of some quality – may not be that. In so far as the Minister can, I hope he clarifies matters for the staff who will be discommoded by this move. They may feel threatened and that this new dawn will mean a great degree of uncertainty. I am sure the Minister will be able to deal with that. This is not the first time a section of the Civil Service has been transformed into a commercial entity. In the preparation of the national spatial plan, the national development plan and the decentralisation programme, the Minister will obviously have an influence on where sections of this office might be located or relocated. I recall raising in the House the controversy in the ordnance survey headquarters in Phoenix Park about poor accommodation and the poor structural quality of some of the building there. References were made to ceilings collapsing and the poor state of the equipment. I assume that was dealt with and, if not, I assume it will be dealt with under this Bill. I note that a number of map shops, probably on franchise from the OSI, have been established around the country. This could be a very commercial enterprise and could be a wonderful success.
One will note from the title deeds of many terraced houses in towns and villages that the gardens and fences have been put in the wrong place. Some people have not changed the title deeds to their property for many years. The function of the OSI in being able to produce accurate maps is critical. The announcement of the gargantuan road project from Kilcullen to Waterford is a case in point. It is 110 kilometres long, 100 metres wide and will cost £550 million. It will cut a mass ive swathe through habitats, habitations and virgin ground. OSI maps from the 1820s have covered that tract of land and recorded its history. A new future is coming and whether it is right or wrong, or is objected to or not, that land will never be the same again. That 100 metre wide band will be there for the next 150 years. Once the NRA and its contractors do their work, there will be a new categorisation of how the country surrounding the road will develop.
I hope the Minister will, in so far as he can, offer clarification to the staff and tell them that this is very necessary. The commercial wing can be exploited for everyone's benefit, particularly for those who work there. The OSI will be able to reflect the needs of a modern country. When decisions are made to invest in infrastructure, industry or communications which will change the topography of the land, a quick, accurate and detailed response is required. It is important that Ordnance Survey Ireland is able to respond to that in a professional, efficient and commercial manner. I like the Irish version of the office's title – Suirbhéireacht Ordanáis Éireann. It is a fine sounding name.
The list of functions to be performed by the body is wide ranging and gives an idea of the possible scope of activity. The decision to transform the Civil Service wing into a commercial wing will obviously mean Ordnance Survey Ireland will be run in a professional manner. I am not aware if the Minister has determined who the four to nine members of the board will be, but I hope the appointees will reflect the kind of people who should be on the board, namely, individuals with an interest in this area rather than people who have, for example, spoken kindly to a member of the Government.
In addition to having an interest in the field, board members must be professional and efficient because if the Government decides to transform the OSI into a commercial, semi-State organisation, the board will have to take responsibility for ensuring that decision is implemented effectively, professionally and efficiently. I hope the Minister complies with Government requirements on gender balance and finds people with commitment. The board's predecessors were responsible for the physical mapping of the topography of the land and drawing the original Ordnance Survey maps. The next board will be the planners and map makers of the future. If it and its chief executive do not possess a driving commitment to fulfil the mandate outlined by the Government, the fears and concerns of staff will boil over.
I strongly recommend, the Minister gives his appointees a clear mandate. Board positions must not be a sop, but ones in which appointees will be expected to perform. OSI must set an example by becoming a model semi-State organisation which others will be proud to follow commercially and professionally. It must be able to meet the needs, demands and requirements placed on it by Government and to respond to the ordinary public.
I do not know what sort of examination system will be in place in 20 years time. It is possible that there will never again be a question about Ordnance Survey maps. Regardless of the future direction of technology, we will still have to see the land around us, the mountains and hills, the lakes and rivers. Somebody had to map them first and did so very successfully. I hope OSI will be able to duplicate that success in future using modern, professional, 21st century methodology. Its staff should be able to say its initial fears and concerns were addressed by a responsive Government. It must be justly proud of having made the break with the past, embarked on a new course and set a standard for others.
Having operated for 170 years without any fundamental legislation governing its activities, this Bill is necessary for OSI. It is about time primary legislation was introduced to regulate Ordnance Survey Ireland. On another level, however, it amazes me that OSI has always been part of the Department of Finance. It is extraordinary that a Minister can admit it is necessary to change the status of a body such as Ordnance Survey Ireland in order to free it from the shackles of his Department and thus allow it the commercial freedom to compete in today's world. The Department of Finance, which sets itself up as a kind of god able to run everything while others have no idea how to run anything, now admits its bureaucracy is smothering the Ordnance Survey and fundamental changes are necessary to allow the organisation to breathe. If that is the position, changes are required to the Department of Finance rather than the Ordnance Survey.
It is all very well for the Department to refer to restrictions imposed on OSI by Civil Service staff, but the admission that the way it does business can smother an organisation is dreadful. I am amazed at some of the recent Department statements signalling the reason for change. They amount to a terrible admission of its own faults.
This Bill does not go the full way. It gives the Ordnance Survey a status similar to that of the Civil Service. The logic of the argument is that this is a half way house and OSI should be privatised as soon as possible. This trend has been discernible for a decade in all Governments. I often wonder if it is necessary to continue moving bodies into the competition of the private sector. When will we reconsider this policy? People will argue that the world has changed, there are EU rules and, therefore, nothing stands still, but at the same time we, too, are changing. One month we plan to sell off Aer Lingus, the next we discover the company is of vital national interest.
We are following a trend set in other countries. It appears the UK is reconsidering privatisation by proposing to re-nationalise the railway infrastructure. Has the Minister examined the way in which the British ordnance survey has been handled. Its status was altered several years ago, yet I understand its former status was partially reinstated due to the problems it encountered. I am reassured the British have seen the errors of their ways and learned from their mistakes. However, it would be very wrong for us to ruthlessly and recklessly press ahead with an agenda set in 1987 or thereabouts. I hope, therefore, that someone in the Department has been following events in Britain.
Several speakers mentioned the concerns of staff, some of which appear to be legitimate. I hope efforts are being made to allay those concerns. Sometimes management claims to have spent a certain number of hours in consultation with staff. It looks very impressive and allays the concerns of outsiders. However, OSI staff state that management sat down and talked, but provided no information. Consultation and discussion have to be meaningful. That does not only mean management being able to give the Minister the line that it has spent a specific number of days or hours in consultations or working parties, which from day one appear to have been nothing more than a stalling PR exercise designed to allow it to report having gone through the motions. That is not sufficient. An hour or two of straight talking to tell people what is happening, why it is happening and what the long-term agenda is, is far more meaningful than days and weeks of meetings that no one wants. The view is that staff are only being brought halfway into the loop, but their fears and suspicions seem to grow rather than being allayed by these meetings.
I worked for a semi-State body which had worker directors and was a trade union activist for years. Workers want worker directors. The trend now is to bring in the social partners and place an IBEC representative, trade union fat cat representative or retired Labour Party member on the board. That is not what workers want. I accept the trend under the national agreements is to have the social partners represented, but it is not a case of having a farmer, trade union official or somebody from IBEC. I do not know who they represent. Workers want a worker director, they do not want anyone else who was or might have been a sympathiser or an ex-trade union official. That desire is deeply ingrained in many organisations and workers are not happy with the recent trend. The inclusion of the social partners may quieten major lobby groups, but it is not what workers want. Workers want a worker director, here and elsewhere. They want a worker director elected by them, not somebody supposedly representing them. I do not understand the indecision. The Minister should agree to the appointment of worker directors.
The Minister said the Phoenix Park is not an ideal site and that under the decentralisation programme the Ordnance Survey may be moved from there. I know the Government has decentralisation plans which are not being announced for the moment. There is talk about moving some thing from Dublin to Killybegs, Clifden, Caherciveen or Waterford, to the extremities of the country. However, the result is the removal of offices from the suburbs of Dublin, such as the Phoenix Park. People should be moved out of their offices in Merrion Street and downtown Dublin to the Phoenix Park, the M50, the Dublin suburbs. There is no need to go to the extremities of the world.
The Deputy still wants to hold on to them.
Why not? Decentralisation does not mean a move out of Dublin to the four extremities. It can mean a move from downtown Dublin to Tallaght, the M50, Ballymun, Coolock and Navan. Many people drive into Dublin to work every day from Carlow and Mullingar. There is no need to go to the farthest part of west Galway.
We want our share too.
I understand the Government does not wish to announce a major programme of decentralisation in the period before a general election because the Opposition will say it was done with the wrong motives in mind.
A few others understand it.
The plans have been worked out, but the Government does not wish to be accused of strokes and that is fair enough. I am amazed and amused that only the little bits are being announced with people being moved from the Phoenix Park, not Merrion Street. Places a couple of miles from the city centre should be getting their fair share. While I have nothing against Galway or anywhere else getting its slice of the action, decentralisation does not have to extend to the western seaboard.
Workers in the Ordnance Survey have other complaints. The interim board and management seemed to have moved the situation on. I understand in recent times they have decided that the print section is to be closed down. Why is that happening? The workers told me that they were not properly consulted. Before the legislation is passed management and the interim board are so impatient that they are moving the goalposts before the flag is raised and have decided to close down the print section. Consultation and a working party went nowhere. Management did not seem to know what it wanted. There is no justification for machinery being used for only 20 hours per week, if that is the case. That is a disgrace. Inefficiency is not permissible, be it in a Department, semi-State body or private organisation. It should not happen. If this was happening under the management of the Department of Finance, people in that Department should answer for its inefficiency. The people to be reprimanded should be those in the Department of Finance, not those in other bodies such as the Ordnance Survey. Inefficiency is not allowed and should not be tolerated. All these moves towards privatisation and getting away from the Civil Service would not be necessary if there was proper management and consultation.
Workers are reasonable people if spoken to in a straightforward manner. The UK Ordnance Survey office took a similar decision and outsourced the printing of maps. The result was lorry-loads of maps being returned because of inaccuracies. The Ordnance Survey may work slowly, but mistakes in maps are noticed at an early stage. Perhaps the work is checked too thoroughly. This may contribute to the efficiency problem. The British now realise the outsourcing of printing was a mistake. We have the benefit of knowing what happened in the UK Ordnance Survey. If they realise that the outsourcing of printing was a mistake, we should be taking notice.
The workers are upset that before the legislation is passed management is changing the ground rules and closing the printing section. It looks as if somebody wants to close the whole place down as a way of ensuring efficiency. It is not necessary to remove bodies from under the aegis of a Department or privatise them in order to achieve efficiency.
It is the job of management to decide what is necessary. Consultation with the workers is necessary – they need to be brought along with the process. There are many complaints from staff about how things are being done. They feel they are not being told the whole story. If the OSI is to have a bright future, a relationship of trust must be established between management and the workers. There have been talks in recent days. However, the important thing is not the number of hours involved in talks but that there is straight talking and that progress is made. Workers need to be brought along in this process. If they are constantly afraid of further announcements and if they feel the management is not being up-front with them, there will be no real progress and both sides will remain locked into an old-fashioned "them and us" attitude. Enlightened and up-front management is required. Workers are not fools and they will respond if they are treated as adults.
I welcome this Bill as a response to the need for change, but I also share Deputy Noel Ahern's concern. The Minister of State, in his statement on Second Stage a few days ago, quoted the interim chairperson of the board as saying it was not possible for the Civil Service to deliver this new service on a commercially viable basis. Whether intentionally or otherwise, that statement conveys a doubt, which Deputy Ahern has also expressed, as to the capacity of the Civil Service to deliver a modern service to the people who require it. We must acknowledge the courtesy, efficiency and helpfulness of the Ordnance Survey Office staff over many years. Why, after 177 years, can they no longer do that job effec tively? It is bewildering. I accept the statement by the Minister of State that the staff seemed very happy about the proposals and I hope that is the case. However, I wonder how they react to the comment of the interim chairperson, Mr. Bonner, to which I have just referred. I hope the Minister of State will comment on that in his reply.
Ordnance survey maps have often caused contention at a very local level, in the context of subdivision of land and property rights, with people pursuing their entitlements down to the last inch. We depend on the Ordnance Survey Office for accuracy and, in general, that has been provided in great detail. Nevertheless, there have been some inaccuracies. I recall an incident a few years ago, involving a mountaineering group in the McGillicuddy Reeks in County Kerry. Through fate, their progress was halted by the unexpected onset of darkness but, if they had continued, they would have come to a cliff edge much sooner than was indicated on their ordnance survey map. When light returned, they found that they would, literally, have gone over the edge if they had relied on the detail of the map. Perhaps, at the time of the original mapping, such precise detail was not considered vitally important, but it was obviously of critical importance in that instance.
Most children have access to ordnance survey maps through the educational system at an early stage and they may also become familiar with map reading through orienteering or scouting activities. Having regard to the wide range of purposes for which maps are used, it is essential that they are competently and professionally prepared. I welcome the provision in this Bill with regard to greater resources and personnel in that regard. In addition to the more familiar uses of maps, such as road navigation and defining property boundaries, modern digitised mapping technology and geographic information systems involve a vastly greater amount of detail.
Why is it necessary to have such a vague provision with regard to the number of members to be appointed to the board, within the range of four to nine? Why can we not specify a precise number of members? If it is restricted to the minimum of four, the representation of interest groups which the Minister of State has mentioned, such as chartered surveyors, trade unions and many others, will not be very widely representative. The number of members on the board should be clearly defined from the very outset. The educational sector, which is not provided for, should also be represented, having regard to the importance of maps throughout the educational process.
Although the board will be established for a five year term, the first members of the board will be appointed for four years only. What is the reason for that? Does the Minister of State expect that the teething problems of the initial board may not be apparent at this stage and is he reserving the opportunity, if necessary, to have the first board replaced ahead of schedule? The chairper son and chief executive officer will be appointed for a five year period. Perhaps, in his reply, the Minister of State will comment on the differentiation.
My colleague, Deputy Connaughton, referred to the importance of mapping in relation to the Land Registry. I am not sure whether the problem in that office originates in the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, though the overlap is obvious.
The strain and stress on personnel in the Land Registry office is very difficult to understand. Given the requirements and the volume of requests that lie in that office and the inadequacy of staffing and of resources in general to respond to the urgent needs of people seeking maps, it is something that requires an immediate response. There is an opportunity here for the OSI to maybe link into the requirements of the Land Registry. There are backlogs in the Land Registry and it is important to provide whatever is necessary by way of resources and additional personnel to deliver the service within a reasonable time. I hope the Government will overcome that problem.
The staff in the Land Registry, like those in the Ordnance Survey, are of the highest calibre and their courtesy and helpfulness is beyond mention. However, the pressure under which they work to provide a reasonable standard of service is unbelievable. I hope that is dealt with as a matter of urgency in the interests of all Departments connected and associated with it whether the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Finance.
We are aware of the traditional service the personnel from the Ordnance Survey have given down through the years. It has a very illustrious history in providing a mapping service for the State. Many other speakers mentioned the transfer of a number of staff from the Civil Service to a new independent commercial company. If the degree of satisfaction, as expressed by the Minister of State, is there, it is very welcome. We hope for a smooth transition. The Minister of State, who has responsibility for this, has given guarantees that the workers will not lose out in any way. We hope there will be no hidden agendas and that nobody will lose out as a result of this transfer. It is of particular interest to many workers and personnel in the Civil Service at large. We have noticed over the years that there has been a necessity to change the functions of various agencies, traditionally under State management, in a modern society. For the reasons I mentioned, if an organisation is no longer to have Civil Service status and is to become an independent body, the personnel should be given an absolute guarantee that they will not lose out. At a time when many other workers across the economy are concerned about job security, we must give them a guarantee that they will not lose out. That would be welcome.
I would like to mention maps and details. As a result of the national development plan, the National Roads Authority is producing maps with enormous detail. That is a requirement in outlining the routes for the various roads. The difficulty I have is that initial maps used by the NRA giving the general outline or the corridor through which these roads would go were old and lacking in detail. Further examination by the project teams and the consultants involved in delivering the final preferred options showed clearly that the older maps lacked the necessary details. When many property owners looked at the original maps, they were satisfied the project would not have a great impact on them and on their holdings and properties. However, when the detailed maps were produced later, they showed clearly that the project impinged on their livelihoods to a far greater degree than was shown on the original maps. It is important that an agency like the NRA shows the detail at the initial planning stage rather than shock many landowners at a later stage. It has happened that many landowners were reasonably satisfied initially only to be shocked later by the detail. That is why this Bill is so important. The digitisation of maps is welcome in so far as people will be able to see every detail.
There is a need for co-ordination. Maps in the hands of Dúchas and the detail on those maps are not represented on OSI maps. I hope, with this new mapping agency, there will be greater co-ordination in the overall detail.
With regard to copyright, in no area have copyright entitlements been broken as often as in the reproduction of maps without permission. I have not seen it referred to in the Bill and it may be covered by the copyright legislation. It is important that the new body which we will set up retains absolute copyright. At present the level of breach of copyright is unbelievable. Much litigation is due to map authenticity. Maps are being reproduced, although not by the proper agencies, and people are able to change the detail quite readily through modern technology. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that this new OSI will have copyright that cannot be infringed in any way, because this has again and again been the cause of time-consuming, costly and at times acrimonious litigation processes? Will the Minister also accept the need for widespread representation of interest groups on the board, the need for a response from the whole educational sector from training and education right through to the training of chartered accountants and so on, and the need for them to be represented from the start, even on a board with the minimum of four members?
I wish the new OSI success. I hope neither the principles not the ethos established and operated by the old Ordnance Survey under the Civil Service system will be lost in this transition. Everybody knows of the courtesy and helpfulness of the people who have done the work for the past 177 years. I hope that will continue in the same vein for as long as is necessary under the new board.
I welcome the thrust of this Bill. A stage has been reached where it has become necessary in order to enable the Ordnance Survey Office meet the demands of modern times. I have served in this House for quite some time and, like other public representatives, have had many dealings with that office. I praise what they do. They have been extraordinarily courteous and professional through the years, and I hope the new body will mirror that image. However – and I will come back to this – I have a strange feeling that the main impact of this change will be that Ordnance Survey maps will never again be as cheap as they are now because an air of commerciality is creeping into the system. I could write the script for what will happen.
It is very important for a database for the progress of our nation that we have absolute accuracy in mapping, because there is not a single person in the State who does not have to deal at some stage during his or her life with a map of some sort, whether it is a map of the site of he or her house, farm or factory, a map of the roadways or airports, or of nature trails in the context of tourism. Anything one cares to mention requires a map. I do not want to go too deep into history, but we have had several huge mapping projects in this country, particularly during the last century. These were very accurate at that stage. However, the face of Ireland changed and many important landmarks no longer exist. In the world of farming there was a push in the 1980s to have every acre adjusted for tax purposes. The Ordnance Survey Office was involved in that because basic mapping was needed. That project had a short shelf life – it went on for two or three years but I have heard nothing about it in the past ten years. Because Government policy changed, the concept was deemed out of order. The satellite in the sky has been a remarkable step forward in the context of the farming community and area aid – every acre owned by nearly every one of the 170,000 farming families can now be called up on a screen in Hume House.
It seems that the Ordnance Survey Office now wants to go in a different direction altogether. The Ordnance Survey Office is as important today as it was 177 years ago, and it will be just as important in another 100 years. It is the job of the Ordnance Survey Office to ensure that there is a map of every property. That brings me to a few very important issues. Many people might find it hard to believe, but despite the satellite in the sky and other mapping surveys, there are still quite large areas of this country that are not accurately mapped. There are no maps for some areas and, unfortunately, those areas coincide with areas that are not particularly valuable, for example, mountainous areas in respect of which, until a few years ago, nobody took much notice of whether they were mapped because they consisted of commonage used communally by local farmers. It is only in more recent times since we have had to comply with various European Union directives relating to special areas of conservation and so on that they have taken on a whole new life of their own. I have met many groups in various capacities which were unable to find a map which was detailed enough for their purposes. There are also huge areas of bog for which there are no maps and which are shown only as big blank areas with no indication of ownership.
The problem now is that when the Ordnance Survey Office is commercialised – I have no problem with that and can see why it must be done – the cost of the maps will increase unless some major profitable development takes place, and people with less valuable property will be unable to pay for maps even if they could get them. I understand that constructing a map is a costly business. I mentioned that during private Members' business when I spoke about the Land Registry Office and I will not go back over that now except to say that once a map is on file it can be worked on, but if a map has to be constructed for the purpose of area aid or for some other purpose, it requires much time and financial resources.
Heretofore, the Ordnance Survey Office charged for maps on the basis that one map was no more costly than another but, as in all other areas of life, that may not be the case when it is commercialised. That is something about which the Minister will need to speak to the new board. I note that a State subsidy is provided for, but my fear is that some day somebody in Government will get a rush of blood to the head and tell the Ordnance Survey Office that it is on its own.
It is written in the legislation.
I know, but it is the degree of the subsidy that will make the difference.
Debate adjourned.