Telephone Capital Bill, 1963— Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Hilliard)

Before Question Time, I was replying to Deputy T. Lynch's query regarding telephone operators. I said that there were 215 in training at present and arrangements are in hand to recruit and train 300 approximately. The figures I gave do not include the operating staffs of provincial exchanges. I also told the Deputy that if he has any particular difficulties in mind he should let me know.

Deputy Dillon asked for details of the provision for depreciation and the amount of surplus revenue surrendered during the period 1948 to 1959. The figures are as follows: taking the financial years 1947-48 to 1958-59 inclusive, the depreciation provision was £5,134,000, and the surplus revenue £1,873,000 in the same period. The interest capital came to £4,822,000 and the total figures stand at £11,829,000.

Mr. Dillon

About £1 million a year.

Mr. Hilliard

Yes, about that.

Mr. Dillon

So that the capital provision in each of those years can be increased by £1 million.

Mr. Hilliard

I do not think there are any other questions raised by Deputies which call for answer now, I am not in the least concerned with the reference by Deputy Dillon to his forbearance but I am deeply concerned with the progressive advancement of the work undertaken by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the passage of the 1960 Capital Act and I hope that in the next five years the Department will improve out of all recognition.

Mr. Mullen

You should do that.

Mr. Hilliard

I want to say that I very much regret the absence from this debate of a contribution by the late Deputy Norton. I was looking forward immensely to hearing him but God ordained otherwise. I very much regret his death, which is a personal loss to me.

Mr. Dillon

I thank the Minister for his generous observation. I mentioned to the Minister the question of the failure of subscribers to get a reasonably prompt answer in dialing 10 or 31 in Dublin and I asked him if he would tell the House whether that was primarily due to an absolute lack of equipment or whether, by increasing personnel during the hours after six o'clock, the existing equipment could be made somewhat more efficient at least for the purpose of answering subscribers and explaining the delay.

Mr. Hilliard

That matter is continuously under review in the Department and they keep a very close eye on it. It is not easy to find a solution to the problem which the Deputy has in mind. I have here a detailed explanation, as it were, and I will give it to the Deputy. There has been a good deal of criticism of the speed of answering calls particularly at Dublin exchange during the summer season. I am well aware that the speed of answering was poor on occasions during the peak periods of traffic. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the operators and supervising staff in the exchange were in no way to blame for these conditions. On the contrary, they deserve to be commended not only by me but also by the public for the earnest efforts they made to give a good standard of service in very difficult conditions.

The traffic during peak periods at the height of the summer season is tremendous. Every effort is made by increasing the number of staff serving and the number of staffed switchboards to cope with this rise in traffic but there are limits to which this can be done and, even in normal conditions, sudden surges of traffic may occur which lead to temporary difficulties. The difficulties experienced this year were mainly the indirect result of the difficulties experienced on the trunk system. Every operator is expected to carry a certain load of calls over a period of time. In normal conditions she would have no difficulty in doing so.

However, when conditions of delay occur, such as were common at peak periods during the summer, her effectiveness is seriously impaired because the time taken to connect calls is protracted. This must necessarily be reflected in a sharp decline in the speed of answer to waiting callers. The speed of answer was also adversely affected by calls for assistance from people who were unable to get trunk and sometimes local calls by direct dialling. However, as I have made clear already, much of the criticism directed against the speed of answer was obviously coming from people—I am not talking about Deputy Dillon now—who did not really understand the situation. The overall aim of my Department is to provide an average speed of answer not exceeding ten seconds. That is the aim of the Department and a difficulty, as I have explained, which the controller in the central exchanges continuously watches.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to be unreasonable about this. Perhaps the Minister has not got this information. How does he relate seconds to sounds of the bell? I usually count the delay by the number of times the bell sounds. I do not complain if the bell only sounds ten times.

Mr. Hilliard

Three seconds to each bell.

Mr. Dillon

Then I am not as unreasonable as I thought. I have counted 140 bells. That means I was holding the telephone for two minutes.

Mr. Hilliard

It would all depend on the pressure at the exchange at the time.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will agree that it is excessive?

Mr. Hilliard

It is.

Mr. Dillon

The Post Office say that they would like to maintain an average, that calls should be answered on average within five sounds of the bell. That gives you 15 seconds instead of ten. I want to know so that if I am delayed only seven or eight bells, I am not being unreasonably delayed, but, if not, I have a legitimate complaint.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Dec 1963