Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1973

Vol. 76 No. 5

Telephone Capital Bill, 1973 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

The purpose of this Bill is briefly to authorise the Minister for Finance to advance moneys up to a limit of £175 million for continued development of the telephone service. The sum of £50 million provided for by the last Telephone Capital Act passed in 1969 is exhausted; hence the need for a new Bill.

Expenditure on the telephone service falls under two broad headings. One is current expenditure on day-to-day operation, maintenance et cetera. This is met out of moneys voted annually by the Oireachtas which are more than balanced by telephone revenue paid into the Exchequer. The other is capital expenditure on development works such as provision of new exchanges and trunk routes, buildings, laying of underground cables et cetera.

Telephone Capital Acts do not sanction expenditure; they are enabling Acts empowering the Minister for Finance to make issues out of the Central Fund for telephone development. They also authorise him to borrow for that purpose. The issues are made to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on foot of annual Capital Works Estimates approved by the Minister for Finance. Capital and interest are repaid by annuities extending over a period of 25 years.

The Telephone Capital Act, 1969, passed in March 1969 authorised the Minister for Finance to issue a total of £50 million for telephone development. There had been on hand at 1st April, 1968, a balance of £3,658,000 from previous legislation. Expenditure during the 5 years ended 31st March last amounted to £51.5 million leaving a balance of over £2 million.

The £51.5 million was spent as follows: £26.2 million on subscribers' lines and installations, £15.3 million on exchanges, £7.5 million on trunk routes and the balance of £2.5 million on sites, buildings, et cetera.

The sum of £50 million provided for in the 1969 Act was intended to cover the cost of a works programme designed to meet requirements from mid 1968-69 to mid 1973-74. As it turned out, the £50 million spent in this period was worth about £37 million in 1968 prices. Clearly, expenditure on this limited scale was insufficient to enable the proposed programme to be carried out.

In the event, some 117,000 new connections were made during the period resulting in a net increase of some 78,000 new subscribers lines; over 650 new kiosks were erected; almost all existing exchanges were extended; about 200 exchanges were converted to automatic working and 7,200 additional trunk circuits were brought into service. The works carried out, extensive though they were, fell short of targets set in 1969. At present, more than 34,000 applicants for telephones are on the waiting list; the number of trunk circuits is inadequate on many routes; there are arrears of underground cableing for local development and of building works essential for the installation of equipment.

Severe capital restrictions in 1970 and 1971 necessitated special measures which slowed down the whole programme. The effects have continued since August, 1971—when the restrictions were lifted—and are still being felt.

This was an unfortunate example of a stop-go policy being applied where it did great damage—to a service which had arrears and was striving to accelerate to meet a steadily increasing demand.

The present position is that the capacity of the telephone system needs to be greatly enlarged. Many exchanges in Dublin and throughout the country have insufficient equipment to take on all the applicants for service until extra equipment can be installed. Likewise many exchanges, particularly in Dublin, are overloaded to some degree in the busy hours. The trunk system is also short of lines and equipment.

Since capital restrictions were relaxed in the latter part of 1971 efforts to expand the capacity of the system have been pressed ahead as rapidly as possible. The value of the plant and equipment being installed or on order is at present more than £40 million. However, much more needs to be done. While many large contracts for equipment have been placed to date, quantities ordered have been limited by the availability of accommodation. This problem is receiving special attention.

The importance of a good telephone service to economic development is now generally recognised. There is a very obvious relationship between the speed of industrial and commercial development and the ease of communications available to the business community. A high quality telephone service is a valuable asset but it has to be paid for by heavy investment.

The scale of the investment required for modern telecommunication systems can be judged from the fact that in Britain a 5-year £4,000 million telecommunications development programme has been approved. The French telecommunications capital budget for 1973 is about £800 million and will rise to close on £1,000 million in 1974. We must be prepared to invest heavily too, bearing in mind that we have much leeway to make up as we are in a comparatively early stage of development.

Once a programme of heavy investment has been launched, it is important that it should normally follow its planned course. Experience has shown clearly that even a relatively short period of financial restrictions can affect the programme for many years ahead. A further point is that telephone development at a satisfactory rate is dependent not only on finance but on expansion of skilled manpower resources, acquisition of sites, provision of new buildings, time required to instal equipment. There are practical limits to the speed with which progress can be made under these heads.

I am glad to have the agreement of the Minister for Finance to the sum of £175 million provided for in the Bill representing the estimated cost of the programme, at 1973-74 price and wage levels, which it is anticipated, the Department will be able to carry out before mid-1978. I should like to stress—and I should like this emphasis to be understood in the debate to come—that this represents the scale of the effort to be undertaken. If the amount of £175 million is eroded by rises in price and wage costs the Minister for Finance will make good the deficiency and has agreed in advance to do so. That would mean introducing a new telephone capital Bill before the expiration of the five-year period.

The programme to be undertaken has a number of broad objectives. The first priority is to raise the quality of service of existing subscribers to a satisfactory standard by clearing local congestion and providing larger capacity links between the principal exchanges. The second general objective is, of course, to reduce and eventually eliminate the waiting list for new telephones. The conversion of manual exchanges to automatic working must also be pressed ahead as rapidly as possible to satisfy justifiable public demand and to overcome the growing accommodation and staffing difficulties at the larger manual exchanges.

The programme, which it is proposed to carry out before mid-1978, provides for a net increase of 190,000 subscribers' lines—from 270,000 to 460,000. It is planned to reach treble the present connection rate and to increase the number of telephones by 250,000 to more than 570,000. This would result in our telephone density being raised from 12 per 100 of population at present to 19 per 100 in 1978. We would then have about the same density as France has at present. The density figures in other EEC countries are higher.

In the "01"—Greater Dublin— area 24 new exchanges are proposed, replacing smaller exchanges in 13 places. A number of these new exchanges notably a 20,000 line exchange at Ballsbridge, 20,000 at Tallaght, 16,000 lines at the GPO, and 10,000 lines at Santry are at present at the installation stage. The subscriber capacity of almost all the remaining exchanges in Dublin will be increased.

In Cork a new 20,000 line automatic exchange will be provided at Quaker Road, a major trunk and automanual exchange building will be erected at Churchfield and most other exchanges in the area will be extended. Two new automatic exchanges will be brought into service in both Limerick and Galway and major extensions of the existing automanual exchanges will be carried out. Automanual exchanges and trunk traffic equipment at the other major centres throughout the country will also be expanded as will very many of the subscriber exchanges.

It is planned to convert more than 200 manual exchanges, including all the larger exchanges, to automatic working. This will leave some 380 manual exchanges which it is estimated will be serving some 28,000 subscribers in 1978 when the system should be 94 per cent automatic as compared with 85 per cent at present. However, it is intended that a good deal of the preparatory work, for example, acquisition of sites, erection of standard type buildings, provision of trunk circuits, for the conversion of the remaining manual exchanges will be done during the period.

The major trunk schemes to be carried out during the period of the programme will include upgrading of the southern and northern co-axial cables from 600 to 2,700 circuits each and the western cable from 960 to 2,700 circuits; and commissioning new radio link systems and co-axial cables to serve numerous centres. Some 3,000 additional cross-channel trunk circuits will be provided. Overall the number of trunk circuits will be more than doubled.

New exchange buildings and extensions of existing buildings are to be provided at virtually all the main switching centres and about 200 other places.

Other developments under the programme will include the provision of coinbox telephones with trunk dialling facilities; substantial increase in the number of mobile automatic exchanges to meet temporary needs; an increase of one-third at least in the number of kiosks and the improvement and expansion of the International Service.

When the new International Exchange in Dublin, at present in the final installation stages, opens for service about March next, the number of circuits on direct routes to various European and North American centres will be almost doubled. The connection of calls will be expedited as operators in the exchange will have the technical facilities required to dial calls directly to subscribers with automatic telephones in Western European countries and in the USA and Canada. International Subscriber Dialling will be introduced from the busy city centre exchanges in Dublin towards the end of the year and will be expanded later. STD facilities to London and Belfast will be extended to a number of our provincial centres.

It is likely that expansion of international traffic will make an earth station here for satellite transmissions viable in the late 1970s. In the meantime, we will continue to use satellite circuits through the Goonhilly earth station in Cornwall in which we have an investment share.

The programme will provide employment for some thousands of extra skilled and semi-skilled men and for many engineering graduates. A substantial part of the stores to be used will be manufactured in the country, thus giving employment to many more.

Telephone costs have, of course, been affected by inflation but telephone charges over the years have advanced less than consumer prices generally notwithstanding very steep increases in telephone pay rates. The telephone service is essentially a profitable one and there need be no doubts about its ability to service the big investment now proposed. As announced recently, the Minister for Finance has negotiated on favourable terms a loan of £7.5 million from the European Investment Bank to finance in part the telephone capital programme for 1973-74. We hope to get similar loans for future years.

I have mentioned elsewhere on a number of occasions lately that I am giving consideration to the question whether the telephone service is best provided by a Government Department. Proposals for any radical change in an institution, such as the Post Office, which in its present form has served the public well for such a long time, would clearly require very thorough examination and full consultation with all likely to be affected: that means substantially the whole community. So far as my own consideration of the matter is concerned, I still have a very open mind and if Senators wish to state their views I shall welcome them.

To return to the Bill, it is clear that the telephone service requires a massive programme of expansion—of buildings, equipment, of skilled staff resources. Satisfactory progress depends on heavy capital investment which the Bill will authorise. The amount provided for is indicative of the Government's determination to carry through the programme required. I am sure the Bill will commend itself to to Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Lenihan

Broadly speaking the Bill does commend itself to the House. It is a very practical and sensible extension to the Telephone Capital Bill. 1969, which enabled £50 million to be raised for telephone development since 1969. I appreciate the Minister's point that to some extent this is eroded by inflation in the period subsequent to the passing of that Act and, in effect. he said that in 1969 terms this was worth £37 million. In the even more galloping inflation that we are experiencing now this is going to erode to a substantial extent the £175 million that we are enabling to be raised for telephone development under this Bill.

It is not enough to say that the Minister for Finance will make good any such deficiency that may be caused by inflation in the implementation of this programme over the next five years. Fundamentally, it is the Minister for Finance, and the Department of Finance, who will be concerned about controlling inflation. Such guarantees. whether made verbally or in writing to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, or whether in an inter-Departmental communication between the Department of Finance and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. in my experience, mean very little when it comes to the reality of what the Minister for Finance has to deal with having regard to the present world situation financially and economically in the months and years ahead.

It is illusory for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to say that the Minister for Finance has agreed to meet any shortfall that may be caused by inflation over the next five years by which he will need more than £175 million to maintain his public capital programme in regard to telephone equipment. This is illusory and based on a Department of Finance or ministerial agreement, whether in writing or verbally. There is nothing in this Bill about it. All we should be concerned about as parliamentarians is what is in the Bill.

If the £50 million which was quite substantial in 1969 was eroded to the extent of £37 million in the period since then I hesitate to contemplate the sort of erosion that will arise with regard to the £175 million in the present situation of the £1 in the world market with rampant inflation. I am issuing a cautionary word to the Minister, which I am sure he fully appreciates himself, that ultimately any plans he may have will be subjected to the sort of control that will arise in the financial sense faced with the economic recession and very grave economic difficulties into which we are going. That is a side issue.

The main purpose of the Bill is a welcome one. We need this capital money for the extension and improvement, as outlined by the Minister in his introductory speech, of our telephone service, particularly having regard to the very heavy capital requirements involved in installing equipment for this purpose. Forgive me for introducing a constituency note here but I am glad that through the good offices of the Industrial Development Authority the main Swedish supplying firm to the Post Office in regard to telephonic equipment, Ericsson Limited, now located in Athlone, will be employing up to 600 skilled male personnel on this type of work and that the regional college there is designing courses to suit this type of development.

This ensures that we have an industrial base through which and out of which the Post Office, or whoever replaces the Post Office in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or whichever semi-State body may be established, will be enabled to (a) have a manufacturing base here for telephonic equipment, (b) that that base is guaranteed by part of the industrial conglomerate of the world's leading telephonic communication manufacturers, and (c) that the personnel are being trained there to ensure that the operation is a success. There is a built-in manufacturing base here for the supply of telephonic equipment that will enable the type of programme outlined by the Minister to succeed. It will provide, as far as we are concerned, a certain defence against any fall-back in the supply of such essential equipment or any outrageous price increases that would leave us open to the world market in the supply of telephonic equipment. The efforts made by the Industrial Development Authority to establish a manufacturing base in regard to the production of such equipment will help in the difficult years ahead to ensure continuity in the volume of supply of equipment which will enable the Minister to carry out his proposals.

There are certain other queries that I should like to raise. First of all, I am aware that both in regard to the World Bank and the European Investment Bank, proposals submitted by the previous Government have been followed on by the present Government in regard to securing loan advance to initiate this programme. A lot of noise was made about the £7.5 million loan for the first year but in view of the magnitude of the problem I would consider that loan inadequate. I do not know what proposals are on foot to secure further loans in this direction, but certainly £175 million is going to be spent, and it will need to be spent in the next five years and, having regard to what I said earlier on about inflation, probably a lot more than that in actual money terms. I would consider a £7.5 million pounds loan in the initial year, for 1974-75, to be inadequate.

I appreciate that this is the first year, but certainly if the Minister, with his enabling legislation, is thinking in terms of at least £175 million expenditure over the next five years, then it is ridiculous to talk of a loan in the region of £7.5 million for the first year, unless there is a very real escalation in the loans that will come from the European Investment Bank over the second, third, fourth and fifth years of the programme.

I should like to know if the Minister has any information about the prospects for a substantial increase in that loan advance from the European Investment Bank over the second, third, fourth and fifth years of the programme. Unless there is a very real escalation and improvement in the £7.5 million for the first year, I would envisage at least three, four or five times of an increase, if the programme is going to be achieved over the next five years. I mention this because this sort of money represents a very heavy burden on our resources. That is why it is important to go to loan agencies to which we have access and the obvious one, having regard to our membership of the European Economic Community, is the European Investment Bank. When the big noise was made by the Minister for Finance in regard to this £7.5 million, knowing the facts I considered it highly inadequate. I mentioned 1974-75: I appreciate that is for 1973-74. It is the present year we are taking about, not next year.

This highlights what I am saying. If we have £7.5 million from the European Investment Bank for the telephone capital programme for the year up to March of next year, then I should like to hear more about what we are getting from March, 1974, to March, 1975, and from then on, depending on the change, of course, of the public and capital and current programmes to the annual January/ December basis. But on whatever basis, all we have from the Minister for Finance is that we will get £7.5 million in the current year, from March of this year to March of next year. We have heard nothing from him about what sort of funds are going to be made available for capital development in regard to the telephone service in each of the four succeeding years.

It is very important that we have information on this because expenditure of this magnitude is going to bear very heavily on our resources and much more heavily when we see the next budget, and the capital and current figures for the next budget. having regard to the sort of expenditure to which the present Government are already committed. I can see very serious difficulties, if we are going to rely on our own resources for the substantial expenditure that will be needed for the Minister to carry out his programme.

I should like to raise one other matter—it is something that may be more relevant to the Minister for Finance—and it is in regard to seeking whatever assistance we can get. Has any effort been made by the Government to secure a contribution from the EEC Regional Policy Development Fund towards a mitigation of the interest repayments on this loan? One of the most important aspects in the proposed regional policy proposals which, I understand, will be adopted is a direct grant of three units of account, or 3 per cent interest, towards any country, such as Ireland, that qualifies on all the criteria for regional aid. This is particularly for countries, such as Ireland, which have such very real infrastructural problems such as this.

This is a classic example of an infrastructural need that we would find difficulty in meeting out of our own resources. There is a provision in the regional policy which is non-contentious and which will be adopted. It enables any country securing money such as this from the European Investment Bank to secure an interest grant of 3 per cent. Three per cent on a major loan can be quite substantial. A 3 per cent interest rebate on a loan of £7.5 million is quite substantial, but I would envisage much larger loans than that being required from the EIB over the coming years.

It is very important that the Government, in submitting their project to the European Investment Bank, should have regard to this very specific provision under the regional policy. Areas such as Ireland and Southern Italy have real problems in regard to infrastructure, where their internal resources are not such as can be taxed to pay for the capital required to deal with infrastructural needs. This should be brought home very strongly to the people responsible. This means co-ordinating applications to the European Investment Bank on the loan side and applications to the regional development fund for interest rebate to projects such as this that qualify under the infrastructure heading. This applies across the board to high-rate developments, such as water add sewerage developments, that are required. Our major problem as a community has been to raise the massive loan finance that is needed to deal with our telephone problem, our roads problem, and our water and sewerage problem. In other words, from our own resources we cannot really provide the funds required to deal with these major infrastructural developments.

I, therefore, welcome this Bill as a step in this direction. The initial injection of £7.5 million is paltry and is totally inadequate. If we are going to plan ahead, as the Minister seemingly feels it is necessary to do, then we must have a tremendously increased loan capital made available, working from a basis of £7.5 million for the current year, but substantially increased in the years ahead, if his desired target is going to be achieved.

I suggest that he should discuss with his Government colleagues a way in which the Exchequer could find a mitigation or a reduction in regard to the interest repayments that would be our burden in regard to such loans. There is the immediate three units of account or 3 per cent mitigation that we can secure from the regional development fund to take the heat off our Exchequer carrying the interest repayment which would be the main burden on our Exchequer capital-wise in the years ahead.

I conclude on the basis that the Bill is welcome. It is a matter of progression from the Telephone Capital Act, 1969. It is non-contentious. Any Irish Government concerned about their business would bring in such a Bill. This Bill would have been brought in irrespective of which Government were in power. There is no contention involved, but there are real questions in regard to securing the necessary loan finance from the European Investment Bank or any other agency, in order to keep the Minister's plans in regard to the investment he envisages alive.

There is also the very real problem that would be accentuated by the sort of inflation in which the world now finds itself, where the £175 million over the next five years might be totally inadequate. It will be a matter for the Minister to secure that finance internally. There is nothing in the Bill about it.

I, personally, do not trust the Minister for Finance in these matters. The Minister may have been reassured, but he will find very real problems if the heat is on in the sense of any sort of financial restriction in the years ahead. He may find his telephone expansion programme in a stop-go situation. I hope it will not happen. I agree with the Minister that these matters should be planned on a basis which excludes stop-go but one is up against very real problems in dealing with inflation having regard to the financial and economic problems of the world. All I would suggest is that the Minister and the Government get moving very quickly on getting substantial loan commitments from the European Investment Bank that will seal and make certain whatever programme he has in mind. I would suggest to him that the initial injection of £7.5 million is so totally inadequate as to merit a substantial case for a very real improvement. It should not be done on a one-year basis. It should be done on a five-year basis. It should be spelled out precisely what commitments are involved from the European Investment Bank, what possible assistance can come in the way of interest rebate from the Regional Development Fund, and the whole matter should be done on a five-year basis as the Minister envisages.

There is no point in having five-year aspirations unless there are five-year capital commitments from the loan and grant agencies involved in Europe which can enable us to carry out this programme. It is the type of programme which we cannot carry out through our own resources unless we have commitments over the next five years from the particular agencies within Europe which can give us very real assistance to deal with this very important and major infrastructure problem.

Without a good telephone system in the modern world we are not in the league as far as economic progress is concerned. It is a fundamental infrastructure requirement, more important than any other. If we are to do business in the world in future we must have this right. My only concern is that the Minister ensures that we have the financial commitments, perferably from resources outside our own. If we are depending too much on our own resources we will be up against the stop-go situation. If we get definite forward financial commitments in regard to both loans and grants from the two European agencies which I have mentioned, we are in a strong situation; and that is the approach the Minister must go on. It is that approach which will guarantee success for the Minister in the programme he has outlined.

In conclusion, the Minister asked that we say something about the notion which he has bruited abroad about removing the system from direct control of his Department to some State-sponsored agency. I regard that as secondary to what I have been saying. It matters very little whether the Minister wants it directly or whether he delegates it to a State-sponsored agency, as long as the capital is forthcoming and guaranteed. The Minister can then plan ahead on a real planning basis. Who administers the actual programme is secondary. There are arguments for having it on a State-sponsored basis; there are arguments for doing it directly. Personally, I would prefer it to be done on a State-sponsored basis through some agency. However, there are very real problems, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. He will have to deal with the trade unions in connection with grades and establishment situations across the board in the existing system. It is easy to set up a State-sponsored agency when you are doing it de novo. It is another matter when you are seeking to switch 23,000 people into a new situation and deal with their grades and establishment situations. It is easy to talk about State-sponsored bodies. The Minister has the problem of an existing structure and it will be his problem to switch that structure into a new situation. Theoretically it is better to have it on a State-sponsored basis, to have it free from departmental control.

If the Department can get their forward financial situation organised from sources which can supply loan finance and not be dependent on domestic requirements—because we cannot meet the sort of moneys which are involved in this situation—if the Minister can get the forward financial planning thoroughly organised and commitments made in regard to that. I would regard the question of the administration as being a very small matter in comparison. I know the Minister's problem in regard to the making of a State-sponsored agency out of the system. The idea is right but there are very real problems to be tackled.

The Bill is generally welcome. The sooner we get on with it and provide the necessary finance, the better.

Mr. Russell

I should like to congratulate the Minister on introducing a broad and imaginative scheme to put the telephone service in this country on a highly efficient level. I do not share the worries of Senator Lenihan in regard to finance. I do not think he is correct in some of the statements he made relative to that financing. As I understand it, the loans the country can get from the European Investment Bank are related to the amount of capital which we expend. In the coming year £7.5 million is directly related to the £90 million it is proposed to spend on the telephone service, or approximately 40 per cent of the total which we expend in this country. It is sensible to assume if the expenditure increases that pro rata the loans which we can command from outside funds will increase.

There is another source of funds which should not be overlooked, and that is that the more we invest in the telephone service the larger is our financial investment and the larger our cash flow. I assume that the Minister, apart from the moneys raised through the normal central funds, can also call on larger outside amounts directly related to the amount of expenditure from our own funds. From that point of view I would not be greatly concerned about financing because I believe that this country will be able to finance it. I am sure Senator Lenihan will agree that it is absolutely necessary that we finance it. Past history has made it quite clear that the amount of expenditure on what is now a vitally necessary service has been hopelessly inadequate. I do not say that in any carping criticism of past Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs. They have had difficulties with which they have had to contend. Perhaps the appreciation of the vital necessity of a modern efficient telephone service was not as greatly appreciated as it is today.

The comment was made in the other House about the depreciated value of the £50 million which was voted in 1968, which at that time looked an enormous figure. At that time it seemed as if we were going to put our telephone system on an efficient basis. The hopes of five years ago have not been realised. As has been pointed out by the Minister in his speech, the £50 million of 1968 turned out to be something like £37 million. That is why the House should warmly welcome the procedures in this instance. The Minister is talking about spending £175 million at 1973 price and wage levels. He is giving the undertaking which has come to him from the Minister for Finance that any adjustments arising out of deflation or increases in the cost of living will be adjusted by bringing in, if necessary, another telephone Bill, or as I would assume Bills, over the next five years. That means that we are assured that £175 million at the going value of the £ in any year over the next five years will be available to modernise our telephone system. If that is so it is certainly very welcome news to everybody—to farmers, shopkeepers, industrialists and the people living in remote rural areas. They should all be very glad of this assurance and this major commitment from the Department of Finance and from the Minister's own Department.

The Minister could, with benefit, decentralise the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to a far greater extent. Most of us in public life, have had the experience of constituents coming to us to seek our assistance in getting telephone connections, in most cases for very good reasons. They are commercial travellers, farmers, veterinary surgeons, people engaged in industry or representing industry who want to have rapid and available communications. For obvious reasons, they cannot be looked after as quickly as one would like. I should like to see more contract work done at local or regional level.

As far as I understand, the procedure is that almost every application has to go to Dublin, has to be processed, and has to come back to the area to be put into effect. If I am broadly correct in that statement, a vast amount of decentralisation could be done. I should like to see the Department of Posts and Telegraphs decentralised to something of the same extent as the ESB or CIE where there are regional managers. Perhaps it is necessary to have some sort of regional committees representative of the broad interests in the area so that the Department could be regarded as a local as well as a national and international service. I hope that idea will commend itself to the Minister. I hope it is practicable because certainly it is desirable. I believe it has proved to be desirable and effective in other branches of the Government services.

We are living in an age of rapid changes in all forms of communications. We are cognisant of all the changes in the air, on the land and on the sea. We have not been, up to now, so appreciative of the necessary changes that will come in telecommunications and telex and telegrams and all the other various means of communicating from one city to another, from one country to another, for various industrial or social reasons. Applications for telephones are now running at something over 40,000 a year. They have been increasing rapidly. I think it is safe to assume that in the not too distant future they will rise to something like 50,000 applications per year.

In the Minister's reply, I should like him to relate this £175 million programme to the expected increase in the demand for telephones and other services supplied by his Department. We know that the £175 million will be used to build new post offices, to provide new equipment, to train new staff, to do a number of other things. How is that directly related to the anticipated increase in demand for the services provided by the Department? Is £175 million, which seems an enormous sum, sufficient to provide for the rise in demand for services over the next five years? If it is not, we should now be thinking in terms of even greater sums. That might sound rather unwise at this stage when money is relatively tight. Now is the time to look ahead in the knowledge that we will have to provide a far greater and more efficient service, and a far more widely based service, particularly in the context of our membership of the EEC.

Another thing which, perhaps, the Minister might find time to refer to in his reply is this. As everybody who has any connection with industry or business, or indeed, any branch of human activity, knows, it is almost imposssible to contract ahead on the assumption that the goods or services or supplies or equipment will be delivered on time or at anything like the contract price. Every contract now has some form of escalation clause. There is always a way out for delays in delivery. Anybody who is a member of a local authority will agree with me when I say that all the schemes brought before councillors and which sound so well when they are being proposed, inevitably run into months and sometimes years of delay and inevitably the answer from the city or county engineer or the city or county manager is that it is due to lack of delivery of equipment. I should like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to refer to that point. Apart from the question of money, which we now know will be available, certainly in the present very difficult world circumstances unless firm contracts are made with an assurance of delivery there could be a very serious hold-up in this whole programme over the next five years.

I should like to make another suggestion to the Minister which might be worth considering. All of us who serve on local public bodies know that we get from time to time criticisms that the gas men or the ESB men have hardly pulled out when along come the Posts and Telegraphs men to dig up the road once more. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments who supply local services such as light and heat and telephone services. Would it be possible in connection with new housing estates, corporation or private enterprise estates, that an application for a telephone could be made at the same time as a person is applying for a loan or a grant? In other words, to the services they require such as light and heat, would be added a telephone service? It may be completely impracticable. I put the proposal forward because I can see many advantages in it. When housing schemes are being developed with 200 or 300 houses, if the Minister's Department were aware that one half of the new owners would require telephones, it would be possible to plan ahead on a comprehensive basis rather than waiting for applications to come up every few months in the years ahead.

One development which is likely to occur in the future is the necessity for the training of postal staffs in European languages. I do not know what developments are taking place in that regard. With the interchange of people in the European context, I foresee the necessity arising for some of the staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs being conversant with possibly two or more European languages. I wonder if anything is being done in that regard.

Young men and girls going into the Department should feel assured that they have a worthy career ahead of them, that there is something to look forward to, that they are not going into a pigeon-hole job, that they can climb up to the very top. I should like to see something like a degree in telecommunications. I do not know whether that would be practicable. If it cannot be organised as a degree there is in Limerick, as Senators are aware, a National Institute for Higher Education which would be an ideal centre for training Post Office or telecommunications staff at the very highest level of education. That is worthy of consideration.

I noticed in the discussion in the other House a reference to a 2p telephone call between London and Dublin and vice versa. Is it possible that other cities, such as Limerick, Cork, Waterford and elsewhere could have the same facility? Is there any reason why they should not have the same facility? I think they should. It is something like the airlines. There is a cheaper rate between Dublin and London, than between Shannon and London and between Cork and London. There seems to be a certain discrimination against the provincial areas in favour of the capital city and the Minister would do well to eliminate this discrimination as far as is practical or practicable.

The Minister asked for the views of both Deputies and Senators on the setting up of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as a semi-State body. There are difficulties here but, on balance, I would come down in favour of this. I do not say that will necessarily make for more efficiency in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but a semi-State body on the lines of the ESB, Bord na Móna or CIE within a Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications could be of advantage in many ways. One instance that I can think of is that the personnel of the board of a semi-State body would consist of people broadly representative of various sectors. I would like to see business people, farmers, consumers, workers and so on represented on it. Divested of their personal or sectional interests, they could contribute very usefully to the development of the telephone and other telecommunications, including telex, which I know is outside the scope of this Bill but should be brought within the scope of any semi-State body that will be set up.

Again, I would like to congratulate the Minister. He has shown imagination and foresight in the programme he has put before us. I am sure the Seanad will gladly, without hesitation, vote the substantial capital sum necessary for the development of our telephone and telecommunications systems.

Professor Quinlan

Any of us who have been subject to the frustrations of the telephone system over the last few years cannot but welcome this Bill. We welcome also this imaginative and direct approach to modernising the system. When we compare our system with the systems operating in the United States and England, where one can readily and speedily dial direct in the knowledge that one's conversation is private whereas here one gets all kinds of cut-ins on conversations, it is obvious the system here badly needs to be modernised.

The system must be modernised as rapidly as we can accomplish it. We are all agreed on that. The world has been coming down to reality very quickly during the past year and particularly during the past month. We are now finding that many of the things we regarded heretofore as necessaries of life are being pushed back into the category of luxuries or into an area where we have to cut out waste, to co-operate and share.

The hefty capital bill involved in modernising the telephone system demands that the greatest care be exercised so that we can cut down expenditure to the absolute minimum and, at the same time, get the best possible service for that expenditure. We will have to monitor the progress very carefully in the years ahead. I am not concerned about whether the system is to be re-organised as a semi-State body or whether it is to be left with the Minister. I agree with previous speakers that the change is not likely to provide a wholly satisfactory solution to the problem but because of the magnitude of the capital expenditure and investment involved here there is a need for a study team, independent of the present structure of the telephone service and largely independent of the Minister's Department.

There is need for an independent research study team which, in relation to the figure we are contemplating of £175 million in capital investment, would for a sum of £100,000 a year make sure that we get the best possible value for our money. Only by doing so can we be sure that we have an adequate monitoring of the progress made and the maintenance of an up-to-date approach. I do not believe any organisation such as the Post Office, or any other large organisation involved in a huge development programme, is in a position to be its own best critic as to whether the money is spent to the best advantage.

I suggest to the Minister that there should be a short-term commission established, even for five years, involving some permanent scientifically trained Posts and Telegraphs people, plus a small advisory committee, something along the lines of the Nuclear Energy Board. There should be somebody established to keep an eye on expenditure on behalf of the public because we seem to be in a position now from which we can expand fairly rapidly. Our major industry, agriculture, is set on a very expansionist course and the markets seem to justify that. We have other facets moving into this expanding economy that we have created. There is so much pressure on the use of capital that we must ensure that we get the best possible value at all times. The Government are faced with deciding priorities between some very commendable and necessary schemes but capital is a very scarce commodity.

I do not look with much favour on foreign borrowing. It is a dangerous and sometimes risky operation. Admittedly, we have to borrow from foreign markets which, for a while, is possibly all right, but we have got to service this foreign borrowing. There is no kick-back to the economy; the interest leaves the country to service these foreign loans, whereas money got from our own people circulates within the economy. The recipients have to pay Irish income tax and, in general, it does make a contribution to the economy. Though it may appear that getting money abroad at 8 per cent is a bargain at a time when. perhaps, it costs maybe 12 or 14 per cent at home, yet the difference is nothing like the difference between 8 per cent and 14 per cent, because you have to allow the real effect of the 8 per cent on borrowing.

I should like then to feel that there is a real need for a study and a rationalisation here. I find that over half the expenditure incurred during the past five years was incurred on sub-subscribers' lines and installations. As projected, with an increase in connections from 270,000 to 460,000 it would appear again that the vast majority of these will be private subscriber lines.

It should be possible to do some rationalising there. We are all aware of the craze of "visiting" on the phone. This is done especially where school children get on the phone about their lessons or something else and may spend half an hour or more on a call. It is not within our capacity to provide circuits to accommodate that type of traffic.

In view of the concern about the availability of telephone service for business purposes, I wonder whether the provision of private house telephones could be restricted quite considerably. Perhaps there could be an automatic cut-out of calls after a few minutes, or some strong warning on the line after a period. If the duration of calls could be cut by half, twice the number of calls could be handled on the circuits, and the overloading factor could be reduced very considerably.

It has been found in business that the telex service has been proving more satisfactory and there is much less waste of time. The question is simply put on the teleprinter, transmitted to the person concerned and when the answer is available it is telexed back. The lines are not tied up for long periods as they can be with telephone inquiries. When making a telephone query, perhaps the person concerned has to be found and there can be appalling waste of time. Business is tending more and more to change over to the telex type of communication.

There is more vandalism in our phone kiosks in this country than anywhere else of which I have experience. When visiting England, America or the Continent one is impressed by the excellent condition of the public telephone booths and the complete absence of vandalism. This vandalism applies to many other public conveniences as well, but it is especially noticeable in the telephone system. If vandalism could be reduced it would result in very considerable savings, as well as lessening the frustration of people who are seeking to use a telephone kiosk and find it out of order.

Would it be possible to enlist the aid of the schools to try to encourage among their pupils a proper respect for public property such as telephone kiosks, et cetera? There has been a great deal of talk during the past few years about the teaching of civics in the schools. We have not heard much about it lately. Perhaps something could be done about this.

These are all points which the present world energy crisis brings home to us. We are not going to approach this Bill today in the same type of unquestioning way in which we would have approached it even six weeks ago. In six months' time we are going to be even much more questioning.

I put all these points to the Minister. There is a vital necessity to have at least a short-term research organisation and methods unit working on them. The adequate provision of staff —especially technical staff—should be anticipated as far as possible and measures taken to train additional people in those areas. If they are not all absorbed into the telephone system they will be very well trained for many positions in industry.

On the question of an advance of £175 million; that is, £125 million and the £50 million that is now exhausted, which the Minister is authorised to make under this Bill, the Minister says the system is profitable. But will the system be able to carry adequate repayments on such an investment? I calculate that the payments will be of the order of £20 million a year, which, added to the other running costs of the system, would call for an increase in telephone revenue of, perhaps, £40 million or £50 million a year. I am not aware of the present figure—it must be of the order of £15 million to £20 million at the very most. Therefore, it would mean that we are looking for at least a threefold increase in the five years on the revenue from telephones.

I commend the Bill. It is long overdue, but I hope we can live up to the capital requirements involved.

Mr. Harte

I should like to welcome the Bill. I have listened to the observations of the previous speakers and I am quite satisfied that there are many areas which require investigation, and some proposals should be brought forward to improve the position. However, regard must be had to the fact that, where provision is made for a service upon which many demands are being made by various Departments of state. No matter how farseeing the Minister is, no matter how detailed and critical his examination of the problems has been, he is always faced with the situation that he can get only a certain amount of money to do a certain number of things. Having read the Minister's opening speech I know this critical and detailed examination took place. I am impressed that it was not Dublin orientated. It has spread very far and has taken in all the rural areas and has looked at the outstanding needs to project itself outside the country.

Much needs to be done but much has been covered under this Bill and that is the basis on which we should examine it. A good many matters which have been mentioned here can be dealt with by direct approach to the Minister. In that sense there has been some quibbling. The wide scope the Bill gives and the foresight the Minister has shown in making sure that the value of the money he is providing is not lost, are commendable. I should like to be in the position to be able to say to an employer, "I do not want to lose the value of the money". It is a happy position to be in. This shows great foresight on the part of the Minister and I congratulate him on this, as well as every other aspect of the Bill.

There are difficulties when one looks for money to provide a service. The only advantage the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have over any other Department is that to some extent they are run on private enterprise lines. All other Departments owe money to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs because that Department provide a telephone service to the other Departments.

This gives the Minister "a little edge", but it does not allow him to go any further than people wish. No matter how keen his foresight is, he will come to a point where he must come to terms and compromise at the highest level possible and settle for the greatest amount of money he can receive. On looking back at the 1969 Act and the amount of money allowed and how it has been spread over the four-year period and having regard to the fall in the value of money, the amount of money now envisaged and the scope of the benefits to which it is directed are very commendable When this is, matched against the amount of money under the 1969 Act and when the aims of both measures are compared, it is clear that this situation has been thoroughly examined. I have no doubt there is more to come from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

We should take the Bill in its entirety and realise that this is a Bill which shows imagination. It has been subjected to detailed examination. I am somewhat disturbed about the fears expressed by Senator Quinlan and his remarks about setting up a commission to police the money service. If a Minister in doing his job gets money to spend on his Department it appears Senator Quinlan would wish somebody to police the spending of this money and be there to see that what was stated in the Minister's statement would be given effect to. This is not necessary. Senator Quinlan may not have meant this but it sounded like it.

If the Minister is doing his job properly and there is no question about this as is seen from the Bill: he has put himself body and soul into his work—there is no need for anybody to monitor the spending of the money. The Minister has left himself open in the sense that he is ready to receive the views and opinions of the people. He will receive them and when the time comes to give effect to these things I have no doubt that this will be done in accordance with the Minister's statement.

Mr. McGlinchey

Any Bill that will result in the provision of extra moneys to improve and expand the telephone service must be welcomed. We must be realistic and admit that in recent years this service has deteriorated. This is possibly due to the expansion of the service which took place over the past number of years. When the Minister obtains the extra money I hope he will put his priorities right. Before there is an acceleration in the supplying of telephones the Minister should improve the existing service.

When a subscriber lifts his telephone to make a call he is entitled not only to an expeditious service but to a confidential service. The Minister should use some of the money available to him to ensure that in future all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the confidentiality of the telephone service is maintained. If I as a subscriber using a telephone rented from the Minister's Department make a call, nobody either within the postal service or outside it should be allowed to interfere with that call. I am not satisfied that the confidential nature of the telephone service is being maintained in parts of the country today, nor am I satisfied it was maintained for the last number of years. The public should have confidence in the telephone service and the service is useless if members of the public believe that it is being tampered with.

I was rather surprised when in the debate on the Estimates for his Department in the Dáil last June, following a complaint by the Fianna Fáil Deputy from North-East Donegal, the Minister gave the impression that he was not aware of a serious breach in this regard which had occurred in Donegal about 18 months ago. Perhaps it is understandable because at that time the Minister was only about three months in his Department and naturally could not be expected to know of all the happenings there prior to his entry. I was even more surprised when one week later the Independent Deputy for Donegal on the same Estimate stated that he knew nothing about it either. Because of this case, the court case that followed, and the apparent lack of knowledge of some of the participants, in order to satisfy the public and indeed to satisfy me as a subscriber, the Minister should use some of the money he is seeking under this Bill to hold a public Departmental inquiry into this sordid business.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

On a point of order, would a public inquiry he telephone capital? Is this relevant to this debate?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would not be capital.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am asking for a public departmental inquiry, financed by moneys the Minister is seeking, to satisfy the public that telephone tapping did occur two years ago and some of this money should be used to ensure that it will not happen again. I can give the Minister sufficient facts to justify such an inquiry. I have an interest in it because the telephone that was tapped was mine. As a subscriber I believe I am entitled to a reasonable assurance that this simply cannot happen again. I am disturbed because while one telephonist was brought to court I know that another escaped the net and he is still in the employment of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

On Good Friday of last year I reported to the postal authorities in Letterkenny that I had reason, for some months, to suspect that my telephone was being interfered with, that when I made a number of telephone calls, particularly to the Fianna Fáil Deputy for East Donegal, people were being allowed to tune into the switchboard and on other occasions information was being passed by a certain telephonist. I discovered that this particular telephonist was on duty on two nights of the week on his own from midnight until 8 a.m. I noticed in the Official Report that a Deputy stated that this information was of no value to him.

This affair began just two years ago during the election of constituency delegates to the Fianna Fáil National Executive. While I am sure the Minister is not conversant with the system of election, this particular election resulted in the introduction of phone tapping into Donegal politics, in the dismissal of a telephonist and in a subsequent Circuit Court action. There were three candidates for that election, two of them being supported by the present Independent Deputy for Donegal and a third supported by the Fianna Fáil Deputy and myself. From time to time I discussed over the telephone how various Fianna Fáil cumainn would vote in the election. I gave Deputy Cunningham information of a highly confidential nature. Some time later, I was surprised to discover that this information was known to our opponents. I considered the matter carefully and came to the only conclusion possible, namely, that my telephone was being interfered with. I played the role of private detective for a few weeks.

Eventually, I went to the postal authorities, who were very concerned about the allegation and investigated it thoroughly. I named the telephonist and I named the people whom I considered to be responsible. As a result, I discovered that on two nights a week this particular telephonist was on duty on his own. I arranged with Deputy Cunningham that on a number of occasions I would ring him, that I would spin him stories that were completely untrue but that I knew would be controversial, and that I would wait and see.

I remember Wednesday morning, 10th May, 1972. It was the day on which the referendum on our entry into Europe was being held. I travelled to Deputy Cunningham's house, arranged with him that one hour later I would telephone him from my own business to arrange with him what I would say. One hour later I made this phone call. We had a long conversation and I was very interested when, on the next day, at the count on the referendum, I listened to part of that conversation being publicly repeated by no less a person than the Independent Deputy for North-East Donegal. Part of this conversation dealt with a Mr. Patterson, an independent member of Donegal County Council and who happens to be a Presbyterian. I told Deputy Cunningham that I had instructions from the then Taoiseach to bring Councillor Patterson into the Fianna Fáil Party and that he was to be a candidate in the next election. There was no truth in this and Mr. Patterson knew nothing about it. However, five days later, Mr. Patterson had this story repeated to him. He was told that he was joining Fianna Fáil and that he was to be the candidate in the next election. The person who told him this was a councillor—Harry Blaney. When I made that phone call, the postmaster in Letterkenny was aware of it. Early the next morning he checked to see if the necessary ticket was written by the telephonist. Being a trunk call, it was necessary for the telephonist to write down my number, to write down Deputy Cunningham's number and also the time of the call and the appropriate charge. He did not write the ticket. Apparently, he was advised that if there was a leak it could not be traced. We then decided to make another call.

On the morning of 3rd June—about 1 or 1.30 a.m.—another call was made. Again, it was discovered that there was no charge and that the telephonist did not write a ticket. The Post Office investigator arrived on the scene. Early one morning, in June, 1972, he interviewed the telephonist in the post office in Letterkenny. The telephonist signed a statement admitting that he had passed information on numerous occasions which he had got from telephone conversations that I had with Deputy Cunningham. He admitted that on a number of occasions he had tuned a third party on to the switchboard, to enable him to listen to our conversations. He admitted that one of the people responsible for persuading him to commit this foul deed was Councillor Blaney, brother of the Independent Deputy for North-East Donegal——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not wish to interrupt, but I think you are making accusations against people who are not present.

Mr. McGlinchey

——who stated in Dáil Éireann, during the Minister's Estimate, that he did not know what was in it and that he did not know these names were used. I found this very hard to understand. On the morning after this news broke in Letterkenny, that same telephonist was brought to a snack bar by the councillor—whose name you have asked me not to mention——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is long enough in the House to know when he is out of order.

Mr. McGlinchey

——and was told by the telephonist that he had signed a statement and that he had named him as the chief conspirator. Accordingly, when I read the Dáil debates of 20th June I find it hard to understand the statement made. While I realise that it would be completely unparliamentary for me to call Deputy Blaney a liar, I will be charitable and say that he certainly will never be a George Washington.

This case remained sub judice during the entire half of last year and it only reached the Circuit Court two weeks before the general election. If I were to read a statement from counsel for the prosecution, it could be suggested by some that he was naturally biased. Instead, if I may, I will quote, from the Derry Journal of 12th January, 1973, a statement by counsel for the defence, the man employed by the defendant and in whom, I presume——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

While it is quite in order for the Senator to criticise the telephone system or any alleged breaches of confidentiality that may have occurred, he is going into considerable detail on this particular case.

Mr. McGlinchey

I have asked the Minister to make moneys available to investigate the confidentiality of the telephone service. I have asked the Minister to make moneys available to hold an inquiry into the charges I am making and I am merely giving him the facts to justify such an inquiry.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In considerable detail.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am almost finished. I should like to quote, briefly, the statement by the counsel for the defence, the man in whom, I presume, the defendant confided. He said:

The accused now finds himself in court as a result of yielding to political manipulation——

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Could I interrupt here on a point? I do not think it is to be presumed from what counsel has said that his client confided in him. His client will have instructed him to take a particular line.

Mr. McGlinchey

I said that I presumed he confided in him. I did not say he did.

——by sinister people behind the scenes, some who played a prominent part not alone in the political life of this county but, in fact, of this country.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

While allowing the Senator to have made his case, he is now in fact, reviewing a court case and that is not in order. Would the Senator please continue on the Bill?

Mr. McGlinchey

If I am not in order, I have made enough of a case to give the views of the counsel for the defence in that case.

I have, naturally a deep interest in this matter because I believe it was the first occasion in the last century that such a case was taken. This a tribute to the Post Office service. The integrity of the Post Office service did not take into account the ruggedness of Donegal politics.

I am also convinced that another conversation I had was passed on. That conversation was made on a night that this particular telephonist was not on duty. While the postal authorities did everything in their power to investigate the matter, the bubble had burst and the second telephonist escaped the net. Nevertheless, it appears to me that there is at least one telephonist in Donegal in the employment of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who, in the past, committed a serious breach of the regulations and who passed on information. The Minister should take steps to ensure—I realise it is very difficult—that there will never be a repetition of this sort of business in any part of this country.

Perhaps, it could not happen in other parts of Ireland because there is only one Deputy Blaney and he has only one constituency to concern himself about. The Minister should investigate this matter because it has been proved in a court of law that my telephone was interfered with, and that while the political manipulator is not a Member of this House, he certainly is a Member of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Markey

I, and many other Senators, look to the Telephone Capital Bill, 1973 to help us in our problems, but it will not be able to help Senator McGlinchey in his unfortunate problem. He has to look elsewhere than the Minister, or his Department, or the people on this side of the House, for his salvation. I found the continuing saga of the tribal warfare within Fianna Fáil in Donegal most interesting.

Mr. McGlinchey

Not within Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Boland

You should have known what to expect; you were with him long enough.

Mr. Markey

In dealing with such an important Bill which comes before us today, having such a sum of money in its context of £175 million, one could be a bit caustic and say: "Here we are, almost 50 years after the first Telephone Capital Act of 1924 finding ourselves at the bottom of the EEC countries as regards phone density. It would be futile to examine the past activities of any Department or Minister to see how this happened. We must accept that we are late starters in the telephone communication field in Europe. It would be far better to face up to the long haul that lies ahead of us in regard to putting this country on a standard with the EEC countries.

It is somewhat chastening to find that at the end of this five-year programme we will still be the bottom country in the EC as regards telephone density. The protected figure is about 19 per cent, which figure is applicable within France at the moment. That gives an indication, even with the expenditure of the type of money that we are talking about of the haul that lies ahead of us.

There is no doubt that the extent and the quality of a nation's phone service is a very reasonable index of the state of the nation's economic and social welfare. The stage which we are today enabling the raising of a sum of £175 million is the easiest stage in the programme. Assuming that the Minister will be able to raise this money and allocate it as envisaged, it will be essential that we have the "back-up" forces taking over when we come to spend this money. Sites will have to be acquired and new buildings provided. There will have to be a plentiful and timely ordering of the plant and equipment needed. It would help us to tie in with the Minister's encouraging note as regards the programme that lies ahead if he would give us some indication as regards what the investment rate per annum over the coming five years could be. I do not think we want to find ourselves in the terrible dilemma of having a very slow attitude towards the programme for the first two or three years, in which time we would have to take all the necessary steps to find plant, material, equipment and the necessary sites. If we had a fairly even scale of momentum during the programme it would leave us all happier in commending this Bill which is before us today.

There is no doubt that the telephone service is a good business proposition. It is a profitable service. The question of dealing with the arrears of telephone connections that lie on the Department's tables at this moment is important. It is one way of bringing additional funds into central funds, apart from the social benefits that the clearing of arrears will mean. Again, I would like if we could have some indication from the Minister if he can answer it—although it may be a 60 dollar question, or a "chestnut" question to him—as to when we could expect to see the heavy backlog of arrears brought down to a nominal level, which level we would like to see maintained for the future. We would all hope that we have seen an end to the very old and bad incidence of having two or two-and-a-half years of a delay between the time a person makes an application for a telephone and it is installed.

Some comments have already been made as to whether there should be a semi-State authority or some form of an agency looking after the future of the telephone service. Some people seem to think that because of the vast number of people employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the amount of moneys that will be allocated to telephones in the years to come these are ready-made criteria for a semi-State concern. There are other criteria as well. The most important is that of the quality and extent of the service that can be given to people. There is no point in having a telephone in every house in the country if the quality of that service and the quality of the phones are not what they should be. A very important criterion in determining whether a semi-State or any form of agency should look after the future telephone service instead of the Department should be the quality of the service.

The Minister has not referred to a point on which he invited comment in the other House, namely, the allocation of telephone kiosks in rural areas. There the Minister gave the guidelines on which kiosks were allocated and mentioned that they were expected to pay their way or otherwise they should be a replacement of a sub-post office callbox. With all respect to his Department, I should like him to parallel their approach in this matter to that of the ESB who have always looked upon the provision of a supply and service in rural areas as something which urban consumers should, through their contribution, assist and subsidise. In rural areas we are dealing with people who may be living far apart, which leads to the greater need for a telephone service. Again, we must accept that there are not too many sub-post offices around the country. This is an historical incidence and with rural development nowadays, the people in these areas need the same access to phones as urban people. I would ask the Minister and his Department to be a little bit more flexible in the future on this point.

In the Dáil the Minister mentioned the return on capital invested in the Post Office service over previous years. Is the Minister satisfied with this? It has deteriorated in the past couple of years. Perhaps if we had some comparative figures for the EEC countries, on whose level we are trying to place ourselves, we would be in a better position to say whether we are satisfied with the return on the capital invested in the past.

Dr. West

I welcome this Bill and I sympathise with the problems of the Minister who has to deal with the clear imperfections in our telephone service. I wish him every success in his attempts to improve, up-grade and modernise our telephones. I wish to make a few points in connection with the expenditure. We are talking about a figure of £175 million to be spent, or giving permission for that expenditure over a certain period of years. I realise that the bulk of the expenditure will be spent on the basics, increasing the number of lines to subscribers, increasing the size of the exchanges and generally increasing what everybody realises to be the basic links between the subscriber and exchange. Perhaps the Minister could say something more about the more esoteric side of the telephone service—about the satellite system.

I know that we have an investment in the system operating from Cornwall. Perhaps the Minister could give us an indication of the size of our stake in that and whether he intends to increase it. It is obviously an important piece of technology. I would also like to know something about the microwave systems which are now part of modern telephone technology. What is our stake in microwave systems? What is the proportion of our total telephone link which comes under the microwave heading?

We are clearly in an age in which technology is advancing at a tremendous rate. I should like to ask the Minister about the planning section in his Department. I realise that to have a modern telephone service one wants to employ engineers. It is not enough to have engineers. With the microwave technology and the other technologies of telecommunications, physicists should be employed. I would also urge that in a planning department the Minister should include some operational research experts. These would be mathematicians because if we are to have a system which will withstand the test of time and which will meet the needs of this part of the 20th century, the whole planning of our telephone system will need to be most carefully thought out.

When one is placing contracts worth several millions of pounds one clearly needs to weigh the various tenders very carefully. With these highly complex pieces of modern technology, it is absolutely essential that an efficient, tried and tested scientific way of sizing up the various types of technology that one will use in our telephone system will be brought into play. When the Minister is replying I should like him to mention the strength of the planning department in the telephone service at present and how he intends to develop it. It is not sufficient to have a small planning unit. One needs to plan the planners as well.

When our telephone service is being expanded I hope a good deal of attention will be paid to its flexibility. Many of the private institutions which have their own telephone exchanges put out tenders ten or 15 years ago for their private exchanges. They got in various quotations and now find that after ten years or 15 years of service their system is inflexible, is incapable of being repaired beyond a certain stage and is incapable of expansion. Some more careful forward thinking when the contracts are being placed and when the tenders are being evaluated would help to get over these problems. Of course one cannot say what new technologies will occur in telecommunications in the eighties or the nineties but, by having a planning department which has properly qualified people who are graduates from these areas and from the other areas of science and technology which are needed to plan the telephone service, at least we will be able to ensure that the money which we are spending now will not be good money wasted after bad money but will be money which will develop a service with the flexibility and the potential to deal with our population and to deal with the increasing demand which is being made on the service.

Finally, I should like to mention, as other speakers have mentioned here and in the other House, that the installation of telephone systems in rural areas is a most important part of the telephone service. The provision of these services at reasonable costs in the rural and farming communities is a very important subsidy for our farmers and for our rural community as a whole. The modern farmer must have a telephone if he is to farm efficiently. He needs to be in constant contact with suppliers of machinery and goods, with veterinary surgeons and so forth, and it is essential that the telephone service in the rural areas be greatly expanded and improved.

One other point which is of particular interest to people living in the cities is that on one stretch of road one can observe the ESB digging the road up one week and covering it up when they have finished their work; then the corporation come along with their sewerage contractors who dig it up and cover it up and a few months later in come the telephone people who dig the road up and cover it up again. Could the Minister not form an ad hoc group with the other groups that are involved in this activity? It need not be an official committee but could be a liaison group which would ensure that when a large road scheme is going on in a suburban area the various groups who are planning to lay cables in that area in the future have a chance to do it all at the one time. This would save us this constant digging up of roads in suburban areas.

Mr. McCartin

There are just two important points that I wish to make. The first one is about uniformity of service. As someone who comes from an area that is very poorly serviced as regards telephone service, I note that if I go into a kiosk in Dublin and call my own exchange area I find that I can get through to the number in less than five minutes. If I went to book the same call from the other end I would be waiting a half hour or perhaps two hours for the call. I find this very hard to understand but perhaps there is some explanation for it. The people in County Leitrim, County Cavan or in the west pay telephone charges at the same rate—in fact it costs them more to have the service installed—and some uniformity of service should be introduced as soon as possible. There are enough disadvantages already in living and working in some of the underdeveloped areas without having this disadvantage. The telephone service should be operated on a more uniform basis.

I have little reason to complain about the efficiency of the staff of the telephone service. However, sometimes at night-time I have known people who have had occasion to ring an exchange for ten to 15 minutes continuously without getting a reply. This is unfortunate but I have no experience of it during normal working hours; in these hours I find the telephone staffs are overworked and very often frustrated. At night-time a different attitude seems to prevail and I should like the Minister to take note of it.

Some of the extra money should be channelled into the education of people in the proper use of the telephone service. In rural areas, where the service is very limited and a kiosk has to service a large number of people, I have seen farmers in the height of the busy season sitting outside the telephone kiosk while some young person was inside the kiosk discussing the dances, the weather or some other triviality with somebody nearby, callously and inconsiderately holding up and wasting the time of a person who needed the telephone service badly. I never recall seeing any notice in a public phone from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs reminding people of their obligation to be considerate of other people's needs in their use of the telephone. If this were done effectively it could reduce the work load on our telephone service by 30 per cent or 40 per cent. Indeed, I am sure much of the time spent talking on telephones is spent wastefully and inconsiderately. I do not know what can be done about this problem but it is most important that we should educate people to realise that when the service is not adequate to the needs they should get their business done in the very shortest amount of time.

I have often stood in offices where the phone rang and rang while people who should have answered the phone stayed at their desks. Eventually they answered the telephone in a very dilatory manner. This is ridiculous. The public are not sufficiently aware of the situation. In my area, I have known businessmen who have had to wait for four hours before they could get a call through to Dublin. I do not mind if we are unable to provide sufficient finance to speed up this, but it does annoy me very much to think that inconsiderate people are taking up lines and wasting the time of operators on unimportant discussions. This is the most important point I wish to make and I would ask the Minister to use some money to educate the public in the considerate use of telephones.

Mr. Keegan

With other speakers I welcome an opportunity of making a few remarks on this new allocation of moneys which are so badly needed if we are to have an improved telephone service. The telephone service has expanded enormously over the years. We will have a continuation of this increase in demand for service. If we are to have the service which the people expect, naturally enough, more moneys are needed and new techniques and skills must be availed of. All these things cost money and the only way to get this money is to raise the capital for it.

I should like to deal for a few moments with the need in the rural community for an improved telephone service and, in particular, for an improvement in the provision of telephone kiosks. I realise all the problems associated with the expansion of any service and the improvement of existing services. However, more and more pressures will be put on the Minister and his Department for the provision of additional kiosks throughout rural Ireland. We are in the midst of a power crisis and people will be demanding a service that will save fuel. The telephone kiosks located at, perhaps, crossroads or in small villages will lead to a saving in fuel. We are all aware of the needs of the community at present. The Minister and his secretarial staff are fully aware of the pressures that are being brought to bear on them to have kiosks provided throughout the country. I am sure the Minister will see to it that more kiosks are provided in rural areas.

We must bear in mind that farming is now a business. It is no longer just a way of life and every farmer and rural dweller wants to operate as speedily and as efficiently as possible. Because farmers must be in direct and speedy communication with their veterinary office, their artificial insemination centre, their doctor, their merchants and suppliers, their workers, or anybody else they may need from time to time they need a telephone service and they need it to be as efficient as possible. The telephone kiosk is one service that is used by every section of the community. Nothing frustrates me more than when the Minister's staff make a report on the needs of an area and say there is no need for a telephone in that particular area. There is need for further investigation into all applications for the provision of kiosks in rural areas. Many people cannot afford to pay the rental for a private line and it is, therefore, a social service. Somebody who is old, infirm or sick could not be expected to pay a continuing rental for a private line; the best service for such people is a telephone kiosk.

With regard to vandalism and the damage that is being done to kiosks I would make one suggestion. The Minister and his officials should try to erect kiosks in positions where they would be in constant view of the general public, under public lighting, near a shop, or a publichouse. I would even go so far as to say that they should be placed as near as possible to private houses so as to curb the activities of the vandals. We are all anxious to curb vandalism. I remember one Sunday in Dublin when I wanted to make a call home. I tried six kiosks and the mechanism of each was badly damaged. The Department cannot be expected to prevent that but we need more civic-minded people who will look on the service as being vital to the well-being of our community. We should also bear in mind the cost each year of repairing telephone kiosks damaged by vandals. I do not know what this amounts to but the Minister knows.

The trend of events in recent weeks and days should induce the Minister to secure an improvement in the telephone service in rural areas. Particularly so in regard to the establishment of more kiosks in view of the threatened fuel shortage and the likelihood that we are likely to have it for many years to come.

With regard to the Minister's "feeler" as to whether the operations of his Department could be better carried out by a semi-State body or by private enterprise, I believe that the telephone network throughout the country could be more efficiently supervised and new services installed under a contract system. When I say that, I must also bear in mind that the present system is a wonderful source of employment. We know that if the private contractor were brought in, those 23,000 people might find their jobs in jeopardy. Therefore, we must live with the present system for many years to come. The onus is on all of us to submit our views and opinions so as to help in the provision of the best possible service. I know that the installation of telephones could be done more speedily and more efficiently by private enterprise.

Again, dealing with the provision of new services in rural areas, I feel that there should be greater liaison between the exchange areas. I live in an area where I have a telephone service from one exchange and my three neighbours have a service from three other exchanges. About 25 miles of poles are involved, whereas one line of poles would have been sufficient. I brought this to the attention of the engineers many years ago but they just would not listen. Some economies could be made in that respect. When an area is being served, the greatest possible use should be made of the lines already in the area.

When people are paying a high rental they are entitled to a better service. We are all fully aware that at present one can pick up the telephone, dial a number and be connected directly to two people having a conversation. I am not referring to tapping or anything of that sort. It often happens that when you try to dial somebody you may cut in on a direct conversation between two people. I know this is a highly technical problem but it is one that I know the Minister and his Department will look into.

I do not know if there is anything more that one can say, except that we must continue to provide a better service. There will be a continued demand for this service and with continually mounting costs I doubt if the Minister will achieve his targets with the capital available to him. I hope he will succeed because it is one service that we all want to see improved; it is a necessary service and it will be availed of more and more as the years go by.

Mr. Moynihan

I rise to support and welcome this major development aimed at improving our telephone service and bringing it up to European standards. We are all conscious of the short-comings of the existing service. It is no secret that foreign industrialists and tourists, et cetera, have been highly critical of the service. They have been critical to such a degree that damage has been done to the further expansion of both industry and tourism.

The Minister, his officials and his technical staff have the goodwill and endorsement of both Houses in regard to the further development of the telephone service. There is, however, a matter of priority the Department should bear in mind. We can look at the existing service under three headings. We have areas of reasonable telephone service, we have areas of very limited telephone service and we have very substantial areas in the west where there is no telephone service at all. The presence or absence of a telephone service could be the link between life or death from the point of view of summoning medical aid. Heavy expenditure and major development should not be concentrated in areas of high population density where the same human aspect. the same absence of amenities and the same need for development are not as great as they are in areas in the West of Ireland.

In the Gap of Dunloe there is a substantial population with no easy access to doctor, ambulance or priest. There are hundreds of such areas scattered around the west. With this proposed development now this should be the last occasion on which any Senator or Deputy should have to raise this matter. The Department planners and technicians should ensure that the priorities are such that. in addition to the provision of a good service, human suffering and the provision of amenities are taken into account. If this is done we will have more tourism and more industry in the West of Ireland. In this spreadout I appeal to the Minister not to leave the inaccessible areas to the last.

Mr. Killilea

I agree with the last speaker concerning the concentration of moneys in those areas most in need. I know people in the west who have been waiting seven years for telephones. It is not the fault of the present Minister and neither was it the fault of his predecessor, that moneys could not be found to provide a proper service.

People in agricultural areas in the west who are in great need of a telephone to operate their business should get priority, particularly those who have been waiting five, six and seven years for this service.

In the smaller towns, such as Athenry, where I live there is a particular example. This is a town approximately 12 miles from Galway city. There are a great many business people living there. They have to wait one hour and, in rush hours, up to two hours to get a call through to Dublin, Galway or any other area in Ireland. It is not the fault of the staff in the post office. They have not got sufficient lines from the town. I know businessmen who have to depend on minutes to get business. This is a serious matter. It is one to which I should like the Minister to give top priority. Other towns have a similar problem and need help urgently. One could spend a whole day citing examples. I appeal to the Minister to give special consideration to towns such as Athenry.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I welcome this Bill and what it proposes to do. In particular, I welcome the Minister, I welcome the open mindedness he has shown with regard to the important question he posed to us towards the end of his speech. Some Senators may regret his posing question because I would not have spoken had he not posed that particular question.

I am in the curious paradoxical position of welcoming the quick investment of capital in the telephone business while personally regretting that the damn thing was ever invented because of the misery it can inflict. Somebody described the telephone to me as a mechanical Jehovah's witness which keeps on ringing and refuses to stop.

However, I welcome the Bill and share the view expressed by the last speaker, and by the Minister in his opening speech, that from the point of view of the economic development of the country the investment of capital in this type of communication could not be exaggerated. With regard to the speaker who suggested there might be some loss of employment resulting from a hiving-off operation, if it were true that there were too many people employed this would be the worst area in which to have such a situation. It would be the worst area in which to impose an inefficient structure.

Progress is made possible by the efficiency of our telephone system and its economic viability. This is likely to generate a great deal of employment. It is rather analogous to the mistaken protection policy which was once imposed and which protected the production of the raw material for another industry which was also protected. This had the effect of making the second industry which was using the raw material more inefficiently than it would have been. It may be, in a curious way, analogous to the effect of the export tax relief at the moment which encourages the exporters of products which are raw materials for other Irish industries. It thereby makes it more difficult for the home industries requiring these raw materials to do well.

With regard to this question, my judgment for what it is worth—and I do not know anything like enough about it for my judgment to be anything other than a tentative one—is that the telephone service ought to be hived off. Later I shall raise the question as to whether it should be a semi-State body or one in which the State participates. I should say at this stage that any remark I might make with regard to the recommendation of that proposal must not be taken to reflect on the competency of the people who are concerned with the administration of the telephone service at the moment. The whole question of the administration within the Department is not one for the Department. It is one for the Government, and to a degree one understands that this problem of people who are policy-makers being involved constantly in administrative decisions is being experimented with at the moment in various Departments under the Aireacht concept. What I say with regard to the performance of the telephone system does not necessarily mean I am criticising the personnel involved in that. In a moment I shall give other reasons.

The figure of the approximate return of 6 per cent on capital seems to be absolutely miserable. If I understand the figures correctly and if I am seeing the gross return without provision for the cost of the money that is borrowed, at the moment it is costing the State over 11 per cent to borrow the money. It does not appear to be good finance to borrow at 11 per cent and so invest it that you get only a 6 per cent return. There is something wrong with the institution which so uses that money in what is frankly and admittedly a profitable business so that it can get only a 6 per cent return on money costing 11 per cent. If it were a credit business it would be bankrupt in a very short time, and without the backing of a State guarantor it could not get the money from financiers.

If there is not a first charge of the cost of the money which is used in arriving at the 6 per cent figure, which is I believe the figure the Minister gave in the Dáil, we must realise that the percentage figure we are given is a before tax figure so that we are not even getting what would be the after tax returns. What kind of a dividend could you declare out of a 3 per cent return in a public company that would enable you to retain the confidence of the shareholders? It seems to be a relevant fact to look at in considering whether the performance economically and financially justifies confidence in the continuation of the present system.

The strongest argument for hiving off seems to be the account the Minister frankly gave us of the stop-go position imposed on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in 1969-70. This stop-go position was, I understand, imposed at an early stage in our history also. It is entirely wrong that a concern involved in the term planning that this enormous capital calls for should be in such a position financially that considerations other than the financial performance of the business itself should affect the provision of capital to it. It is quite obvious that we are cutting back capital expenditure at a time which may be justifiable in the particular circumstances —the Minister for Finance will tend to slash wherever he can get cuts most conveniently—but if this were hived off he could not slash it. One of the advantages of either a semi-State body or a public concern in which the State has an interest is that it can make arrangements internationally, and with the best advice in relation to these matters quite independently of the Minister for Finance. His consent to the whole operation may have to be obtained if it is a semi-State body. No concern of the sort and size of the telephone business can possibly lay out a plan for a development of the kind needed in this country for the economic and social progress it is desired to achieve without getting a capital commitment matching the projected cost of the development envisaged.

Is it the only profitable infrastructure? It is a vital one and, as I understand it, a profitable one. I listened to the Minister's speech on the Second Stage and I read carefully what he said in the Dáil. I was looking to see if the Minister might have commented on whether there was any suggestion that, in regard to the costing and the performance of the telephone service itself, as distinct from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, any element of a social cost was being borne by the Department. I do not think there is. The reason why the return in capital is so inadequate may be the social consequence of the fact that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is involved and that it is a political decision as to whether or not telephone charges are raised. This means that being a Department it is not able to make charges for its services which match the real cost of providing those services. This is a further reason for hiving off. I have no illusions at all that one necessarily finds a better economic performance in a capitalist concern than that provided by a semi-State body or a governmental service. Not many of us have any illusions about it. You get bureaucracies built up within private capital institutions just as costly and burdensome in determining what is the true return on the capital invested as you get within State bodies. There is probably a spirit pervading the whole field of public service which, because of its very nature, prevents achieving the best possible progress. If I may quote to the Minister the title of a book written in the 18th century, Private Vices are Public Virtues. It may well be that this horrible moral fault of avarice can prove the best return in the exploitation of the capital which is to be exploited.

There are differences in the quality of performance of the State bodies, but I shall not mention the names of any of them. One does not get a sense of the people participating in a successful enterprise because they are burdened with carrying social costs, which means that they are not getting a true figure for their own satisfaction as to what their real performance is. In so far as we impose on these bodies the performance of social duties, the State should pay for them so that the people in charge of them will know that the only test they can apply is that they are performing as well as their rivals would be in a private concern.

This sense of participation in a successful enterprise is extremely important. I do not see how the people in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs can have that feeling in regard to the performance of the telephone services when they are doing this as only one of the many other public duties which they have to do. They are not developing the kind of minds with regard to the exploitation of the capital—I am using that word deliberately—and getting the best possible return for the community out of it. They are not even stimulated by the bruhaha and the publicity-seeking that can be seen going on in some State bodies. It may be all right although it may not be very pleasant. It seems to get people up early in the morning to rush around in circles when, perhaps, they might be much better in bed but, from the point of view of what they are doing with the money we are giving them to use, this seems to get them to do it better.

The whole matter of raising capital is a highly sophisticated exercise. There is a great deal of skill and expertise in this city with regard to this. I am not at all satisfied that it is being used to the best advantage by the State. It would be better used, if State bodies used this skill and went through the various merchant banks to get at international capital. They know how to get it and can organise international consortia for that purpose.

A very important matter is the inevitable rigidities within the public service with regard to salary scales. I should like the Minister to give this figure, but I do not know if he can say what is the worth of the concern. We are going to spend £175 million over the next five years. That is splendid: we have spent money in the past. What is the value of what we have now? It is a vital question if you are considering hiving it off to the public because it might be far beyond any capital that could possibly be raised. I did not understand clearly if there is a provision for depreciation. I notice that there are annuities which are repaid but I do not know if these annuities have been charged in again. in discovering what the return from the capital may be.

I should like to make some final point. I have a prejudice in favour of the sort of mixed institution which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been mentioning in relation to another field, where the State joins with private enterprise. Prejudices against that idea might be examined. The Government should remind itself that in every private enterprise producing £2,500 a year profit the Government gets 50 per cent of the profits, so that it is a partner in every private enterprise at the moment. Therefore, it might sensibly consider whether all this capital would not be better administered by "whiz kids", who overpay themselves and who manage to accumulate substantial capital. In this kind of combination the State obviously must in this connection stay in the field because we are a monopoly element and if we are doing any hiving off to anything that any private people are engaged in, it could only be done on the basis of retaining the substantial properties which the State holds.

Mr. Halligan

Am I interfering with the Minister's plans by rising, or am I preventing him from replying?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is another speaker.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is intended to rise from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. for tea, if that is agreed.

Mr. Halligan

What strikes me about the Bill is the very concept of its enormity. The Minister is to be congratulated for facing up realistically to what is an enormous problem in terms of capital and in terms of demand. I am quite sure that he looked for much more than he has actually got. The enormity of the expenditure is such that in terms of the proposed new subscriber lines it represents an increase of 140 per cent over what was accomplished during the last five years, in other words, in the next five years 240 per cent of the rate over the last five years. It is clear that the previous plan was grossly inadequate. The waiting list at present represents 40 per cent of the amount of total installations in those five years. That is sufficient in itself in terms of condemnation. The reasons are, perhaps, political rather than technological.

We got a very entertaining—and I might say tantalising—account from Senator Lenihan in this debate as to the vagaries of Ministers for Finance, and I was wondering what distant echoes we were hearing of past battles, for the moment confined to secret Cabinet minutes and, indeed, the less secure secrets of interparty and internal party affairs. The Minister has given us an assurance that what we are dealing with is £175 million in real terms, and not just in money terms. That is important when one considers that under the previous plan I reckon it would cost about £470 to instal a line—that is taking the £37 million in 1968 for 78,000 lines. We are now talking about a rate of £870 per line. That gives us an idea of the cost in terms of inflation which we have to pay for not proceeding at a much more rapid rate, particularly in the 1970-71 period. We are now paying a loan for the existing service and are also paying enormously in terms of cost.

The enormity of the Bill is what I find attractive. Senator Russell raised the question of whether it is sufficient. If it is not sufficient there will be very few people who five years from now will be able to say to the Minister: "I told you so." When one looks at the figures one finds that even in terms of the real demand over the last five years, which is the rate of installation plus the existing waiting list, that is 112,000 lines, the Minister is planning for 190,000, that is 78,000 more over the next five years than the real, effective demand over the last five years. He has accepted that the rate of increase is geometrical. We cannot fault him in any regard in that respect.

Lastly, there are four priorities I should like to see for the future development of the services. First, I should like to see the maintenance of a minimum density per population throughout the country. That would take account of many of the problems which were raised here by Senators from rural areas. Secondly, the extension of the automatic exchange—the extension which has already taken place is to be welcomed; thirdly, the implementation of automatic international subscriber dialling and, lastly, the transference of the departmental functions to a semi-State body.

The Minister raised a question to which he wanted some answers and indications. Surely the function of a Department is administrative. Here we are dealing with something that is technological and economic. One expects any Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to be equipped with the technological, economic and administrative expertise to be the chief executive of an on-going company. A Minister is a political figure. We should not expect him to have these requirements. You might as well ask the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Transport and Power, to be more apt, to be the chief executive of the ESB, CIE or Aer Lingus and to have all the technical expertise at his fingertips to take correct decisions. I do not know of any other Minister with the responsibilities of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He is expected to answer, for example, in the other House, immediately and directly for actions of his Department. A semi-State body, as Senator FitzGerald has said, would be more free in its own management processes, particularly with regard to the raising of loan finance and with adaptations towards new technologies. More particularly, the semi-State body's chief executive would be free from political considerations, to which any Minister for Posts and Telegraphs must be prone particularly at Budget time. A better return in capital would be one of the benefits which would accrue from the change to a semi-State body. I urge the Minister to stress to the Cabinet the necessity for establishing, consequent on this Bill, a new semi-State body for telecommunications.