Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1994

Vol. 140 No. 7

Adjournment Matter. - Telephone Calls to Government Offices.

Mr. Neville

I thank the Minister for attending the House and taking this Adjournment Matter. It is an accepted principle of natural justice that every citizen should have ready and reasonable access to all State services. The Government's commitment to this principle is indicated by its decision to give everybody living in the 01 area local telephone call access to all the decentralised Government offices throughout the country. However, the Government has failed to give this to all the citizens of rural Ireland. It has created a two-tier society regarding this issue, with everybody living outside the 01 area as second class citizens and heavily penalised for living outside the Pale.

With increasing contact being necessary with Government Departments, all such Departments should be accessible at a local charge. Already, any Dublin phone subscriber cannot alone phone Dublin-based Government offices at a local charge but can now also contact all decentralised Government offices at the same charge. For example, anybody in Dublin can call the Revenue Commissioners in Limerick for the cost of a local call but somebody in Rathkeale or Newcastle West, just 18 to 20 miles form Limerick is charged at a trunk call rate if the caller phones the same office in Limerick.

The same situation applies to an old age pensioner wanting to contact the Department of Social Welfare in Sligo or Letterkenny, or a student wanting to contact the Department of Education in Athlone. Why should a pensioner, student or taxpayer outside Dublin pay up to seven times as much as a person in Dublin to contact Government Departments? It is totally unjust and unacceptable.

On 28 November 1991, Mr. Andrew D. Conlon, Market Development Manager, Telecom Éireann said:

Telecom Éireann's national responsibility and the social demands on it to apply a rule which offers greatest equity to all must be remembered. On issues of such importance as pricing, we must take a national view so as no one area in the country is treated in any way more favourably than any other area.

May I ask the Minister how it is possible to have the rural telephone anomaly if this is Telecom Éireann policy?

A number of years ago, Telecom Éireann was directed by the then Minister for Communication, Deputy Séamus Brennan, to reorganise its telephone charge areas to ensure the greatest equity. However, this has not been undertaken and the rural telephone anomaly still exists. In this respect, the report of the Telephone Users' Advisory Group urges that all Government Departments, health boards, local authorities, hospitals and schools in receipt of heavy telephone traffic from the public should be charged as local calls. That recommendation was made in January 1994. To date no action has been taken on it and I ask the Minister to implement it.

This situation also applies to other services. The total population of Dublin can contact all their services, hospitals, councils, all Government offices for a local charge, yet the people in county areas have to contact their council, central hospital and any other similar offices with a trunk call charge. For example, people in Foynes, Shanagolden, Rathkeale, Ardagh, Newcastle West, Templeglantine, Tournafulla and Ballingarry, which is only 18 miles from Limerick, must all pay trunk call charges to contact the council offices, the Mid-Western Health Board or Government offices in Limerick.

Why should people in these areas pay three times the charges as their Dublin counterparts in similar circumstances? With increasing contact being necessary with Government offices, local government offices and health board offices these services should be available at a local call charge. In view of this I ask the Minister to act on this issue as matter of urgency.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Cowen)

I thank Senator Neville for raising this matter. The possibility of introducing such a system was adverted to by the Telephone Users' Advisory Group in its first report to me in January 1994 and I understand the reasoning behind it.

The technical means of providing the service referred to by the Senator is through the "1850" service provided by Telecom Éireann. This is a premium rate service available throughout the State. As a premium rate service the charge to the customer using the service, in this case the recipient of the call, is substantially higher than the normal cost of an equivalent call.

It is essentially a matter for each Government Department to decide, as a customer of Telecom Éireann, whether or not it wishes to provide this service to the public and whether or not they can, within the confines of their administrative budgets, bear the additional costs involved.

I advised the Dáil, and I quote from the Official Report, 18 May 1993, Vol. 430, col. 2062, that:

...the Government has decided that all Government Departments and State agencies and local authorities will be obliged to facilitate a fast and efficient service to their callers involving the maximisation of the freefone service and a call-back service where queries cannot be answered speedily.

This decision was notified to all Government Departments with an instruction that it be copied to bodies under their aegis. My own Department found that, due to cost considerations, it was not possible to provide freefone or "1850" facilities. All staff were, however, instructed that, where telephone callers could not be dealt with promptly, contact numbers should be taken in order that the call could be returned by departmental staff.

My Department will be installing new automated telephone facilities whereby callers who know the extension they require can dial direct to that extension or be put through a voice mail service when the person they wish to contact is not available. I am also having the "1850" services, to at least those areas of the Department which deal to a significant extent with the public, considered in the context of the provision of these new facilities. These facilities will minimise the cost to members of the public endevouring to transact business by telephone with my Department.

I know from my follow up inquiries that some other Departments which examined the possibility of introducing the 1850 service also concluded, on cost grounds, that they could not justify making it generally available. My understanding is that most, if not all, Departments have streamlined their handling of telephone contact with the general public.

I understand why these suggestions are being made. However, it is not reasonable to expect the Government to carry significant additional costs which would arise through the general application of 1850 facilities for Departments. I remind the House that this country, through the free telephone rental allowance scheme operated by my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, already provides a social facility which is unequalled in telephony terms.

Mr. Neville

I thank the Minister for his reply but I am disappointed he was not more positive.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 May 1994.