I got in just before the Adjournment last night and I was commenting on the fact that——
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969, for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and of certain other Services administered by that Office, and for payment of a Grant-in-Aid.
—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.)
The Parliamentary Secretary is not concluding?
No. Taking it all in all, the debate which has lasted for some days has been quite complimentary from the point of view of the overall work of the Department generally. As the person responsible for the postal side I felt it was fitting that I should comment on the debate so far. I was expressing on behalf of the staff of the Department their appreciation of the various tributes to their application to their work, and the tributes to the courtesy which the staff extend to customers, and to the general high standard of efficiency and high standard of honesty existing in the Department.
I was also referring to the few complaints that have been made and I was endeavouring to reply to one particular complaint made about the appointment of a sub-postmaster in the Lissadell area. It is only right that the record should be kept straight in that regard because the position was misrepresented to a considerable extent by Deputy Dr. O'Connell. He did not mention the fact that when the vacancy was advertised and, in fact, when the decision was taken, Deputy Dr. O'Connell's candidate was not a widow.
I do not think it is fair to refer to her as Deputy Dr. O'Connell's candidate. The lady he recommended.
It boils down to the same thing. Certainly, I do not enjoy referring to this at all. It was claimed that political bias was shown in the selection of the successful candidate. I want to contradict this as emphatically as I possibly can.
Apart from that and apart from some remarks by Deputy L'Estrange to which I referred last night and to which I do not intend to refer again, the discussion was kept at a pretty high level. One of the opening remarks made by Deputy Dockrell in leading off on this created a very good impression from my point of view. He said, and I quote from column 1887 of the Official Report of the 27th February:
The Post Office has a very enviable record in staff and labour relations and I hope that those excellent relations will always continue.
This is so, despite some references which were made to some petty problems which the staff in the Post Office may have. Deputy Tully referred to this and said that, perhaps, not enough attention was given to it. In fact, the tribute from Deputy Dockrell was well merited by the staffs' relation section of my Department.
While the Minister in his opening address referred to certain difficulties we have had over the past 12 months, on the whole, the amount of trouble of this type which we have had in the Department has been minimal. This is a tribute in itself to the application of the conciliation and arbitration scheme which almost all members of the Post Office staff accept.
Deputy Dockrell mentioned that the big event in 1968 from the point of view of the public was the increase in Post Office charges. He went on to deal with the 440 million letters which were handled in this country in 1967. He remarked that this increase in postage rates represented 20 per cent and that it meant we would have a little more than 100 million extra pennies to play around with. I have reckoned that 120 million extra pennies would bring in an additional £½ million in a financial year and this still left a gap to be bridged of nearly £1.3 million because the increased postal staff pay arising from the recent increase amounted to £1.8 million.
In view of that I must comment on the general sweeping statement made by Deputy Flanagan who suggested that our postal rates must be the highest in the world. I cannot let it pass. Deputy Lindsay said he agreed our postage had got dearer but he commented that, of course, costs had increased. It may be no harm to draw attention to the fact that as far as Western Europe is concerned our present postal charges, far from being the dearest in the world, are among the lowest. In countries like Sweden, Italy, West Germany, France and Switzerland, postal rates are all much higher than here.
It is natural, in a debate dealing with the Post Office which has such a large number of staff, that the postman should become the biggest factor. After all, he is the man whom the public meet most often.
How many maintenance men have you got?
I have not got the figures, but the postman makes up the biggest proportion of the staff.
CIE have 22,000 of them.
Taking into consideration the 19,000 staff we have in the Post Office, staff relations in general demand a great deal of attention. Deputy Tully asked if we had any special arrangements for the training of supervisors and for training in general in what he termed industrial relations. He suggested that I should consider releasing staff in the daytime to attend classes and courses, particularly those conducted by non-civil servants. I agree fully that this is most important—that supervisors should undergo instruction in the skills of supervision. My Department for quite a long time have been conscious of this and at present officials of the Department are conducting an extensive programme of supervisory training. Shortly, nearly all our supervisors will have benefited from attending such courses.
Are they being conducted within the Department?
We realise, too, the value of training courses in industrial relations conducted by non-civil servants and the Department have always availed themselves fully of courses of that kind conducted by outside bodies whenever we consider courses of that kind to be of value. Already, substantial numbers of our personnel attend such courses each year and in all cases attendance at such courses is in the Department's time. Whether courses conducted by the Department themselves or by outside bodies are more beneficial can be a matter of opinion. The Department have been able to strike a balance between the two types of course for supervisors so as to derive the maximum benefit and so as to have our supervisors as well qualified as possible. From my point of view, this will be Departmental policy because I fully appreciate that the industrial relations field is a most important one and we are determined in the Department that there will be no lack of training in the equipping of supervisors in this aspect of their work.
Deputy Tully mentioned what he described as the hardy annual subject of the five-day week for postmen. This is something which has been debated for quite some time. First of all, I should like to dispel any ideas there may be that the Department are not serious in their efforts to succeed in introducing, all over, a five-day week for postmen. It is not so. It is something we are most anxious to introduce over the full range and already we have introduced a five-day week for a number of postmen in Dublin where it is possible to do so. Personally, I should be very pleased if the five-day week could be introduced all over. I think the House will fully appreciate, however, that it is no easy problem.
Deputy Tully suggested in the course of his contribution that there is no reason why we should not make Saturday a no-delivery day. Let me say, off the cuff, that I could not go along with him and I doubt if Deputy Tully has worked out what kind of postal service we would have if we were to do it. If there was no delivery on Saturday, in the same way there would not be any collection on Saturday and this would mean that deliveries on Monday would be much later than at present. Any mail posted late on Friday night or on Saturday would not be delivered until the following Tuesday. That would bring about a worsening in the standard of the postal service at a stage when we have asked the users of the service to pay increased rates. It would not be justified because I do not think the public could be expected to accept a substandard service.
Then, how does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest there can be a five-day week?
The five-day week must be considered on the basis of the maintenance of a six-day service. This has been done in Dublin and I am not without hope that we can make progress along these lines throughout the country.
How? There are no letters delivered on Sunday.
There is no business transacted on Sunday.
There is not very much on Saturday, either.
Deputy Tully knows very well that the best business of the week in rural Ireland is conducted on Saturday.
Not through the medium of the Post Office.
Let me say that this particular subject is at present receiving very close study by my Departmental council where the claim for a five-day week is being considered at present. This Departmental council was set up to examine the particular problem involved.
How long ago?
Some time ago. Not terribly long ago. Let the Deputy not assume I am making this statement simply and solely for the purpose of fobbing off inquiry; this matter is something we are looking into.
I do not think you are.
I think the Deputy is being unfair. I should like to assure the Deputy that the Department are sparing no effort to devise an acceptable scheme. This council, of which I am speaking, is representative of both the staff and the staff relations side.
The staff can find the answer. The staff relations cannot.
Staff relations have found many answers to a number of problems that have met the staff requirements over the past couple of years. This arises from Deputy Dockrell's remarks in regard to staff relations. In such a big body there will always be staff relations problems. The Minister has given me instructions to devote myself to a considerable extent to the staff relations side, and having devoted quite a considerable amount of attention to the subject, the fact remains that I think relations of this nature within the Post Office——
I immediately think of the dust in Sheriff Street.
I hope to get around to talk about the dust in Sheriff Street. Perhaps it might be as well if I were to deal with it now. The dust in Sheriff Street is a major problem and a number of steps have already been taken to alleviate or remove the problem. It is not too easy. Deputy Tully raised this question during the year. He did not, in fact, raise it in the debate or mention the question of some dust extractor being fitted when the building was being erected.
I did.
Not in this particular debate. The Deputy mentioned it on a number of occasions previously. There is the problem of dust and a number of efforts have been made to relieve or to minimise the problem. Some of those efforts have been successful but there is no doubt that the close proximity of a coal yard to the building itself is probably a major factor. One of the problems here is that there is quite an amount of glass in the building with the result that in hot weather you have quite an amount of heat. It is difficult to open the windows because of the coal yard problem and the result is that the place becomes overheated. When the Deputy raised this matter with me previously, I promised to apply myself to it personally. He says his estimation of me has not been increased very much as a result of whatever remedial action was or was not taken.
Maybe, on the face of it, I must accept that. I have found one of the major problems there is the problem of getting the coal yard removed, and that is something which will not happen overnight. That is something which will take time. In fact, there is provision made as far as Dublin Port and Docks are concerned for the removal of the coal yard to, I think, the Ringsend area. This is not going to happen immediately and there is no point in my saying during the course of this debate that the source of the problem will be removed within the next 12 months period because it will not. I can only promise to continue to try to minimise the dust problem as far as possible. In this regard let me say that mail bags are conducive to the collection of dirt. They are now cleaned about four times oftener than they used to be in an effort to remove the causes of the dust. I think other steps are being taken to try to keep down the incidence of dust from the fuel house.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although there are windows on the coal yard side, they cannot be opened, that only a small number of windows on the other side can be opened and that this makes the position almost impossible? The planning was awful.
I cannot quite accept that. The planning may look at the present time to be awful but it would be quite unfair to condemn the planners. Let us look at it from this point of view. At the time the plan was being made they were hoping before the sorting office was opened—I think there was comment enough that it took long enough to build—that the coal yard would have been removed. They planned on the basis that there would be no coal yard.
Are there plans to remove the coal yard?
There are.
It is a dream.
I suppose that does not come under this Estimate.
They were dreaming for 20 years about getting from Pearse Street. Now they seem to be worse off in Sheriff Street.
I do not accept we are worse off than we were in Pearse Street. I daresay if we remove the dust problem we will probably be creating some other problem. We also have the parking problem, to which Deputy Tully also referred. When this building was being planned about ten years ago the same thought was not given to parking problems. The Deputy said there was no parking space provided for motor bicycles or cycles. That is not the case. There is adequate parking space in the building itself for motor bicycles and cycles. This is my information and I have no reason for thinking it is otherwise.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary go down and have a look for himself? That is the only way he can decide.
This is the point. I would hate the Deputy to think I specifically took no action on the promise I gave some months ago in connection with the dust. I was all over this sorting office and examined it from the dust point of view. I had already been in there on a number of occasions in connection with letter sorting, parcel sorting and that type of thing. I found that there is a covered space for bicycles and motor cycles.
Very inadequate.
As far as I know it is pretty adequate. For some reason or other the number of bicycles and motor cycles is becoming less and the parking problem arising from more of the staff using cars is becoming more serious. At the time of the planning this was not sufficiently taken into consideration. I will not say that parking there is completely adequate but the parking problem in Sheriff Street is, I suppose, similar to the parking problem in the rest of the city.
That is a very bad recommendation.
Fair enough, but it is over ten years since this building was planned and it seemed there was adequate space at the time. During the course of the discussion the Deputy said when we introduce more mechanical sorting machines and mechanical cancelling machines there will be inadequate space for staff. If that is the case, let us accept the fact that when the site was taken ten years ago there was not sufficient space for car parking as such. With regard to the machinery in the letter office, it may be taken that, when we reach the stage of introducing automatic letter sorting equipment, working conditions will not be worsened. I can only promise the House that I will keep as close an eye as possible on this dust problem. I wish to re-assure the Deputy that I have not stood up to speak here without having taken an interest in the matter. In fact, a number of small dust extractors have been introduced and, as further suggestions are presented to me, I propose to take whatever action I can to help in alleviating this problem.
Another of the hardy annuals to which reference was made by Deputies Dockrell, Tully and Crinion was the question of postmen's uniforms. It has been agreed that a further improvement be made in the quality of the new design uniforms to which I referred in the last Estimates debate. This improvement is in the materials to be used which will be of a wool/ terelene mixture in a navy blue colour and supplies are at present being manufactured. It is expected that the new uniforms will be ready for general issue early in the coming year.
In relation to these uniforms, Deputy Tully mentioned that the tunic will be somewhat different. I see he is now playing with his tie. Representations have been made for the issue of shirts and ties to postmen and this matter is being considered. The Deputy smiles, but he talked specifically about only one drip-dry shirt. No doubt, when speaking of inner garments, one must speak in terms of the plural rather than the singular. This is something that has to be looked into, because all these things cost money. Deputy Tully and others also raised the question of the regulation which at present restrains, as he describes it, the freedom of members of the Department's staff—in common, let me say, with all civil servants—to engage in politics.
At present there is a far-reaching claim before the Departmental council on behalf of certain grades of staff in my Department in this regard. This claim is under conciliation and arbitration machinery. The case is that the existing restraints on political activities be removed. Until these negotiations come to a conclusion, I think it would be improper for me to comment, except to say that it is a recognised fact that the permanent post office staffs are civil servants and this has far-reaching implications. Any arrangement that would be made in this matter would, I take it, have to be approved by the Minister for Finance.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this does not apply to teachers and ESB workers?
This is a question which has come up on a number of occasions but, in view of the fact that this matter is being discussed at present by the Departmental council, I would much prefer to leave further comment until after the outcome of the negotiations.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make a definite statement.
We are certainly not afraid about the outcome of the negotiations. From listening to Deputy L'Estrange yesterday evening there is no reason why we should be afraid because, according to him, every postman who is appointed is a Fianna Fáil cumann secretary, so that we should in fact be trying to ensure that they would have this right.
Another subject which has been mentioned during this debate is the question of pensions for part-time and auxiliary postmen. Deputy Corish, I think, when speaking on this, actually mentioned the pay of the auxiliary postmen apart altogether from the pensions. We must realise that an auxiliary postman is a man who does not hold a full-time post and the wages which he receives are worked out in relation to the number of hours he works. Those wages fall in line with the full-time established postman's wages, but I do not think that an auxiliary postman's wages can be treated in any way differently from the manner in which they have been treated up to now. In relation to the question of pensions for unestablished full-time auxiliary and part-time postmen there is a claim on this under conciliation before the general council. Again, this is something on which I should not like to comment at this stage because any question of amending the Acts in relation to this is a matter for the Minister for Finance. Certainly, if the Departmental council can come to any arrangement on this, I have no doubt that my Minister would be only too willing to submit the case to the Minister for Finance.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has requested that 11 people on Bord Gráin come under a pension scheme after only three years, whereas postmen have been employed for up to 50 years and they are not pensionable.
The Deputy knows that we have the agreed gratuity?
The Roland Hill Fund.
No, not Roland Hill. I do not think we should make specific reference, as Deputy Corish did, to Roland Hill. Far be it from me to speak in any derogatory manner about the Roland Hill Fund, which does a tremendous amount of good work and is a fund which is much appreciated within the post office by the staff in general, but there are gratuities payable to unestablished full-time and part-time postmen who have been in service for seven years.
We are working under a Treasury Warrant which was introduced in 1898 by the British Government.
Let me say that I am not at this particular stage too interested when those things were introduced. What I am trying to say is that I cannot allow Deputy Tully at the same time to claim that no progress has been made. Quite a share of progress has been made. Just because there are some things which still remain to be done is no reason to speak in a derogatory manner of the progress that has been made.
I was just commenting on the ones that have not been done specifically. I mentioned specific items.
It is in fairness to people who have commented so far in this debate that I am endeavouring to go into as much detail as possible in replying to them. Let me say, as I have already said in connection with the taking of interest and taking an active part in politics, that this matter is at present under consideration. Both those things —interest in politics and the claim for pensions for full-time unestablished and part-time staff—is before the general council of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme. When it is being considered, I do not think it is appropriate for me to say too much about it.
Reference was also made by Deputy Tully to this question of overtime and the payment of overtime to postmen at Christmas. He raised it by way of a Parliamentary Question some time ago. I have been checking and I find that out of 5,000 rural postmen we have had complaints from seven postmen arising from those type of payments last Christmas. They complained that they were not allowed sufficient overtime in respect of the pressure period at Christmas, 1968. Those complaints are at present being investigated. The fact that we have complaints from seven out of 5,000 men is an indication that the incidence of what they can claim to be short payment of postmen of this nature or insufficient overtime payment to them does not seem to be too justified.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary want another 4,000? I will oblige the Parliamentary Secretary if he does. Those postmen who had served for years knew there was no point in raising this because they were turned down every year.
They might have realised it for the other reason that they felt that they were reasonably fairly dealt with. I am entitled to take my interpretation of this just as the Deputy is.
The Parliamentary Secretary might not be as much in touch.
I am reasonably well in touch with the position so far as rural postmen are concerned. I am quite satisfied that I create as much problems for the postmen in my constituency as the Deputy does in his.
Deputy Tully also criticised the issue of income tax assessment forms. He referred to the forms for completion regarding income tax claims which were sent in Irish to postmen. In this respect, let me say that since 1937, when postmen were first recruited through the Civil Service Commission and since that time, Irish was listed as an essential subject and the income tax forms of this nature are invariably sent by the Revenue Commissioners in their Irish form.
Would you send one to the Minister the next time to keep everything in line?
He was not recruited through the Civil Service Commission.
Through Taca.
Let us keep it as clean as we can.
Is Taca a dirty word?
(Interruptions.)
It is intended to be a dirty word when used by the Opposition. I seem to be giving an extra amount of attention to the comments made by Deputy Tully but he does endeavour in the debate on this particular Post Office Estimate to get down to all the little matters that might be annoying people. He referred to the fact that those little niggling grievances are there and said that an accumulation of these over the years can in the end cause an explosion out of all proportion to the problems. In this particular regard the Deputy is right. He suggested that the delays were, perhaps, due to understaffing of the branch concerned. I cannot accept this and I should say that I and my Department are fully conscious of the point made by Deputy Tully that small unresolved grievances can lead to serious trouble. Every effort is made, therefore, to deal with this type of complaint as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. I am satisfied in general that there is no unavoidable delay in dealing with staff claims and with general grievances. This is not to say that consideration of some claims and of various representations do not take time. The consideration of them does take time but then I think it will be agreed that in most cases it is easier and takes less time to formulate claims than it does to answer them. Claims and representations have to be examined from many aspects.
God forgive you. You should see the trouble there is in preparing the claim before it goes near you at all.
The Deputy should appreciate the difficulty of dealing with the claims. If the Deputy says so much time goes into the preparation of the claims he will appreciate that to deal objectively with the claims and to try to meet the claims must of necessity take time. It would be quite easy to go back immediately with a negative answer and say "no" on any matters raised but this certainly would not be the responsible way to deal with the problem. I do not think anybody would condone this type of attitude. My aim is that all matters raised should be dealt with as promptly and reasonably as possible, and I think this is being done. If I find that the staff of the staff relations branch is not adequate to enable it to deal as expeditiously as possible with matters of this nature, I will not hesitate to strengthen that particular Department.
Reference was made in the Minister's opening remarks to the increased number of welfare officers in the Department. The Department has been one of the pioneers in this country in providing welfare officers. I suppose in an organisation with a staff of 18,000 or 19,000 this, in fact, was not to be wondered at. Over the years welfare officers in the Department have done very good work in a quite and unobtrusive way. They have dealt with a great variety of personal welfare problems among the staff. Following a comparatively recent review of the work and the scope for further activity of this kind, it was decided, within the last two years, to create a number of additional full-time and part-time posts for welfare officers. At present, there is a total of eight of a staff engaged on this work, four full-time and four part-time. It is expected that they will be able to deal reasonably adequately with welfare problems arising among the staff. This matter—the same as the staff relations side—will be kept constantly under review in order to ensure that those eight officers are sufficient adequately to cope with the problems.
A number of Deputies made reference to the inadequacy of post offices in both the city and the country. Deputy Dockrell raised the question of facilities for the posting of large envelopes in the Baggot Street and Fitzwilliam area. These are all matters that I think it would be reasonably inappropriate for me to deal with specifically at this particular stage. It must be realised that there are a number of different types of post boxes. The Baggot Street-Fitzwilliam area is an area where, I suppose, we are likely to have the posting of rather a large-sized envelope which can get itself peculiarly caught in a box so that, even though the post box may not be full, the next person posting might find some sort of a blockage at the aperture and might decide it was full. He might even put in the envelope and it might come out again. This matter is engaging the attention of this section of my Department with a view to seeing if we can improve the position in a number of these areas.
A number of Deputies referred to over-filled boxes and to the inadequacy of the size of boxes in various places. I think it would be inappropriate for me to refer to them now. Deputy Dockrell referred to the Baggot Street-Fitzwilliam area and also to a box at South King Street; Deputy Esmonde referred to boxes in his own area; Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Crinion and a number of other Deputies referred to this matter, too. I shall look into the various points raised by them and I shall endeavour to communicate with them in relation to the particular boxes about which they spoke.
A number of Deputies also referred to the closing of the rural sub-post offices. I was rather surprised that Deputy O'Donnell tied the closing of rural post offices to the motorisation of rural deliveries. Deputy O'Donnell said he found that we had let off postmen who had been a number of years employed as postmen when we introduced motorisation into a given area. I have already contradicted this particular statement and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that, in order to avoid any type of hardship to long-serving postmen, the motorised services are introduced only on the occurrence of vacancies. There is no change envisaged in this practice. As such, motorisation has resulted in the disemployment only of temporary men taken on for a while after the creation of some vacancy pending the rearranging of the motorised area. Certainly, the majority of the men displaced in this operation have been employed for far less than a six-months temporary period. I have been endeavouring to check on the statement by Deputy O'Donnell. I cannot find that we had anybody four or five years who was disemployed through motorisation. In regard to any of the sub-post offices that were closed, they were not being used by the public to any great extent. The amount of post office business transacted at the great majority of them was quite trivial. Sub-post offices have not been closed except where the amount of business was negligible and they were closed only when vacancies, for one reason or another, arose.
Deputy Lindsay, when speaking on the postal side of the business — before he turned over to RTE — was quite rational in his remarks on this matter. He accepted that the closure of post offices of this nature is justified. Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins raised a question which has been engaging my attention for some time. In areas where sub-post offices of this nature are closed, she mentioned—I would imagine it would be an unusual one — the case of the old age pensioner who has to hire a car and to pay a considerable sum of money to go to the next post office to collect his or her old age pension. One of the things that have helped to make the closure of sub-post offices in country districts a little bit more acceptable has been the fact that, since recent Budgets, old age pensioners now have free travel facilities. I am fully mindful of the fact that that is not of much use where public transport is not providing a service but my experience has been that, in those areas where small offices have been closed, the number of social welfare beneficiaries affected is very small and, may be in 50 per cent of the cases, the alternative post office to which they would have to go to collect their pension is not much farther away.
I think it would be inappropriate if I did not refer to the question of giro because this question of the establishment of a giro system in this country has been receiving what I can describe as intermittent consideration in my Department in recent years. However, due to other more pressing commitments, it has not been possible to carry out the full detailed examination that would be essential before a firm decision could be made on whether a service of this kind could justifiably be provided. The present Post Office money order and postal order remittance services and the commercial banks system in this country are more highly developed and widely used than in most of the European countries that operate the giro banks. Consequently, it is by no means certain that a giro would provide a worthwhile medium for transmitting money here and that the demand for such a service would enable it to be provided on an economic basis. Whether or not it would be economic, let me say that the setting-up of such a service would require quite heavy capital expenditure while, at the same time, the demand for it from the general public has so far been practically negligible. The need for the service and the expenditure involved could not, therefore, at this stage be put in any way high on the scale of priorities.
Deputy Tully made reference to individual post offices. I think it would possibly be more appropriate for me to deal with them directly with the Deputy. He made the case that postmasters do not seem to have the power to have something in the nature of urgent remedial works carried out at their own post office or, indeed, any sort of necessary work. This is not so, but arising from his comments I did find that the functions of the postmaster in the area do not allow him to go ahead with redecorating his premises. It is a power which, perhaps, the local sub-postmaster should have and I propose to look into the matter.
The Deputy asked for more variety in designing new post office buildings. Frankly, I was rather surprised at this comment. I wonder if the Deputy has seen some of the really new post offices we have had erected, the post office in Droichead Nua, in Wicklow and in Carlow, which is the most recent one.
The Carlow post office is a fine building and one that cannot be criticised. The Deputy did not say whether he was criticising the design but having looked at these three post offices some time ago, I felt that they were buildings of which I, as representing the Post Office, could be very proud. It was also suggested that the Department should employ consultants to advise on changing the colour of Post Office vehicles in the interest of road safety. This is something on which we are actively engaged at present and I have looked at suggested new colours to make the vehicles more attractive and more "see-able" if you could use the word. The new image which we will shortly have of post office vehicles and of such things as letter-boxes will be a brighter one, if an image can be created through paint.
It was rather appropriate that somebody should have suggested that some type of reflective band should be issued to postmen. This is something which engaged the attention of a number of people, particularly in regard to the Department of Education when the new times were brought in. Postmen are out earlier than most people and it is proposed to issue a yellow or an orange coloured cape to replace the existing black cape. In addition, the Department are considering issuing reflective armbands to foot postmen. This is not something which is to be considered for any length of time; they will be issued for what we might call the next dark season, as far as delivering post is concerned.
I have endeavoured to cover the general trend of the discussion up to now as far as possible and, naturally, I have kept away from the bulk of the discussion which centred around Telefís Éireann and telephone development. Those are subjects which the Minister will be covering in his reply. I should like to take the opportunity, while not being able to take the credit for it, in relation to the kind words which have been expressed from all sides about the efficiency, courtesy and overall conduct of the post office staff, of expressing my satisfaction at hearing this, on behalf of the staff in my Department.
I am pleased to see the Minister looking calm and serene. It was rather fortunate that he was absent some time ago when a reference was made to something which has a depressing effect on the Minister. I hope that as a result he will retain his calmness. All aspects of the debate have been covered in greater detail this year than in any other year. The Parliamentary Secretary has replied to the debate in so far as services other than the broadcasting services are concerned, but I should like to mention the biggest factor in the Department's service and that is the postman. The Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago referred to him as the biggest factor in the service. The postman I have in mind is the unestablished postman and the auxiliary postman. Now is the time to grant to these men what almost all other workers in public employment have been granted for a long time and that is a pension scheme.
I have been a Member of this House for 18 years and in every annual debate on this Estimate the question of pensions for auxiliary and unestablished postmen has been referred to. Always from the Minister of the day suggestions have been made, as they have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary today, to the effect that "this is a problem we are looking into; it is a rather difficult problem and probably the less said about it at this stage the better". The Parliamentary Secretary repeated that kind of platitude and said that this matter has been referred to the general council and that it would be unwise for him to say too much about it, that it would be better to leave it over. Does he mean that we should leave it over and forget about it for another year? If he does, then I am not satisfied with that. Nothing has happened about this issue despite the endeavours of the unions and of others involved.
As a rural Deputy, I believe that people are entitled to recognition and to pensions and the time to deal with the matter is now and not in the future. Unfortunately for the postmen concerned there was a change of Government in 1957. In 1956 the inter-Party Government enabled pensions to be paid to local authority workers such as road workers and were it not for the interruption in 1957 postmen and forestry workers would have been treated in a similar fashion and there would be no need for a Deputy to have to refer to this matter of pensions in 1969. All we are looking for is the introduction of a pension scheme for these workers which would be similar to the pension scheme operating, say, for local authority road workers. That is not unreasonable. There is a number of full-time unestablished postmen and a number of auxiliary postmen who as far as a 40-hour week is concerned could be described as being full-time workers.
I am saying to Deputy Childers as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and to his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Lalor, that this question is more important than many other questions that seemed to take up the greater part of this debate. I have made a number of references to it over the years. I do not like the term "hardy annual" which the Parliamentary Secretary used a number of times in his contribution. Possibly he was justified in using the term "hardy annual" but this is something that I as a rural Deputy and a Member of this House have been asked about both inside and outside the constituency I represent. I am asking the two men in charge of the Department to ensure that this scheme is formulated and brought before this House without delay.
I do not see any great difference between a man employed by a local authority on manual work and a man employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on postal duties. Is it not unfair and unjust and is it not time to wipe out this injustice? I am appealing now and I am repeating myself on this question that, irrespective of what is happening before the so called general council or before arbitration or whatever discussions the Minister is having with the Minister for Finance, something must be done at last on this question of pensions for postmen who are not in receipt of them at present.
It is true to say that the five-day week has been established. I know the problems and difficulties confronting the Department in granting a five-day week to postmen but listening to the cross questions while the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking between himself, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Tully, I thought the obvious way out, which may be acceptable to postmen, is if we must have letters delivered six days of the week to give a bonus for the sixth day. Are they not entitled, seeing that other workers have the benefit of a five-day week, to get an additional bonus for the sixth day?
It would not be a five-day week then. I thought you were looking for a genuine five-day week.
No, no.
Oh, I see.
We are all open to compromise. I think that would be a solution to this problem. Give them an additional bonus if, as the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary believe — and incidentally I agree with them — postal services must operate six days a week. I hope Deputy Childers will ponder on that because I shall be asking him a few questions as to what action he is taking on it.
Mark you, despite reflections which the Minister has cast on me on a number of occasions, I set great value on Deputy Childers as a Minister. I will give him credit for being a man of some ability over and above that which you find on the benches across from me. I believe he has qualifications for the post he holds and he has qualifications for being a member of our senior executive, a member of the Government. I want to say to him in this discussion that I am sure he will address himself to the question I have put to him on pensions for postmen who are not in receipt of them and he cannot but be forced to the conclusion that their grievance is soundly based.
I am well aware that this country now is a mass of grievances. Everybody seems to have a grievance. All sections of the community seem to have a grievance. I know a number of them are justifiable grievances but we all know that a number of others are not too justifiable. Everybody knows that. I am not trying to make an unfair case for any group or section. I judge each case on its merits and unless it has merits I do not support it. The Minister for Finance may say that all sections and groups are looking for more and more at the moment. We appreciate that.
I appreciate that money does not fall from heaven, that money has to be taken from people with one hand in order to give it to them with the other. At the same time, the race now is moving at a fast pace and if a group is not forceful but is bashful or diffident about their claims, and such groups are very few, they are likely to be left out of the race, they are likely to be forgotten. This is the time for pressurising and, if you like, this is what I am doing here on behalf of the postmen in order to secure pensions for them because I think one must pressurise now. The people who are pressurising seem to be winning. I ask the Minister to address himself to this question without delay.
I must confess I had not time to read the Minister's statement until a few hours ago. I heard a great deal about it on the radio and I read something about it in the press. I thought the poor man had made some outlandish statements but during my short time scanning his statement I must confess in fairness to him that I could not see anything outlandish. It was his usual type of statement. There is nothing in it to merit any great criticism. He has certain views on the broadcasting service and a Minister of State or any other man is entitled to put forward his views just as well as any other Deputy. That does not mean we must agree with him. I would not say there was anything radical about his views. The Minister is a man who can stand up and speak for a long time without saying too much. That system was made use of in his statement when introducing his Estimate.
I have another point of view on this broadcasting service and before I mention it I want to say that the Minister is quite entitled to make the comments he made. He may have support for them from a number of people throughout the country. As against that it is generally agreed by all Members of this House who have been interviewed on RTE that they were generally satisfied that they got a fair deal. I do not like mentioning names in this House but the man who mainly deals with Members of the Oireachtas. Dr. Thornley, is a fair and impartial interviewer. He is the man mainly connected with political discussions.
I realise that the Minister is showing signs of late of being a little thinskinned and on that basis I am giving him absolution for his reference to the broadcasting organisation. It is very difficult to please the public. No matter what programmes are broadcast, someone is dissatisfied. That brings me to my main point: why not provide another channel? We would like to see what kind of programmes are broadcast in Britain. On two or three occasions when I put down a question to the Minister I got back the usual circular from the Ceann Comhairle telling me that I was not entitled to raise this matter in the House. I do not know why I was not entitled to raise the matter in the House and why the question was refused. Possibly it was on the same basis as my petition to raise a matter on the Adjournment with the Minister in his role as Minister for Transport and Power last week was refused.
Telefís Éireann has been in existence for some years and, generally, it can be said that it is giving a reasonably good service but we want more. In the northern half of the country I understand that three channels are available. We in south-west Cork have only one.
(Cavan): You do not get Telefís Éireann in parts of the North but you do get the other two.
In the province of Munster and possibly from Dublin southwards there is only one channel available. I do not know anything about the cost of providing an additional channel, but I think we should get it and I think we should see what is happening in Britain. I do not see why we should not have reception of British television in the southern half of the country just as in the northern half. We want to broaden our knowledge. If we were dissatisfied with a programme on Telefís Éireann the way out of the trouble would be to turn a knob and receive a cross-Channel programme. Many of our people are in Britain. Fianna Fáil have pushed a good few across the water. We might hear some news that would be interesting from some of these people.
My view of Telefís Éireann is that it is up to any reasonable standard that we could set. It is an infant body. There are programmes that I dislike but possibly the programmes that I dislike might be pleasing to the Minister. We must get an additional channel and I should like to hear from the Minister when he is replying to the debate whether we will have that additional channel or not. I want to labour this matter for a few minutes because not until this time twelve months, if we survive the election, will we get an opportunity of asking for this additional channel seeing that it is not relevant at Question Time, although I do not know in what way it is irrelevant. Some things happen here that it is very difficult to account for.
I am making a plea, generally, on behalf of many people who have to make do with one channel—Telefís Éireann. We are anxious to get additional channels, possibly, initially, one and later, if circumstances allow, two. That is our main criticism of our television service. We must have alternatives. I am putting it to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that it is his responsibility and on him rests the obligation to tell us whether or not we are to have that service.
There are a few minor matters, minor in the sense that there are no great complaints. I must say the general public are satisfied with the postal services. We hear very few complaints. As the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, and I think it is an accepted fact, the Department is a very important one, providing many different classifications of services. By and large, the staffs employed by the Department are courteous and civil. There may be an odd crank here and there, as is inevitable in an organisation which employs approximately 19,000 persons. The public are satisfied and the public are difficult to satisfy. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should be satisfied, also, on that score.
In many parts of the country there is delay in providing a telephone service. According to the Minister's statement, the position appears bright but I wonder is it really as bright as it appears to be. I hope to put that to the test in the not too distant future by again reminding the Department of applications which have been outstanding for some time and which I hope will be dealt with in the not too distant future.
I should like to remind the Minister that some years ago I inquired of him or his predecessor as to the position with regard to the extension of the automatic telephone service to all parts of south-west Cork and was told that the service would be provided in some four years. After six or seven years the service was provided in what could be termed half the area and the other half is still without the service. When is the automatic telephone service likely to be extended to all parts of west Cork? It is most important that west Cork should have that service in view of the fact that it is the premier tourist centre of the country. That is a question that requires an immediate answer. If in 1960 the Minister thought the service could be provided in 1965 what is his view about this matter in 1969? It is essential that the automatic telephone service should be provided. People are better pleased when the automatic telephone service is available. They have more confidence. I had better not say too much on that question because the last time that I referred to lack of confidence in some places I received letters from organisations supposedly representing some of those people whom I was alleged to have accused.
The position is that, whether we like it or not, a number of people are not anxious to avail of our telephone services and this is no reflection on our staffs. It is a statement of fact. They are doubtful about their conversations and discussions being confidential. That is an absolute fact. We all have experience as Members of this House of people travelling long journeys to us to discuss matters that could adequately be dealt with by phone but because of lack of confidence, in most cases in my opinion wrongly, people are not availing of the service. There is consequent loss of revenue. The way to overcome this problem is to provide an automatic service which people regard as being absolutely confidential. I do not know whether it is or not but that is the general feeling about it and, therefore, people use the service freely.
In case I might get further letters as a result of the report of my statement being read I want to make it quite clear, as I made it clear when I referred to this matter on a previous occasion, that I am merely expressing an opinion held by a section of the general public, a section of sufficiently significant size of warrant mention of the position in the House. I am not aware as to whether or not in all cases there is any justification for such allegation. I know from the situation in my own area that there is little or no justification. We have enough to do looking after our own business without minding other people's business.
Another aspect of the Department's work that I would like to refer to is the Post Office Savings Bank. The Minister and his advisers have access to more information than Deputies, and they can assess better the type of people who invest money in the Post Office Savings Bank. To my mind the people who invest money are from the lower income group, as well as youths and children, who are encouraged to open Post Office savings accounts. If that is correct, in most cases such people would not be liable for income tax. Whilst the trend in interest rate has been upward — it has increased from 2½ per cent to 4 per cent within the past few years — I believe it should be stepped up to 5 per cent. I am fully aware of the introduction of the 6½ per cent bonds, but the type of people who use Post Office savings accounts would be much more at home continuing to use the Post Office savings book which they hold. In order to encourage the lower income people to put their money in the Post Office, a rate of less than 5 per cent is inadequate, particularly having regard to the fact that so many of these investors — at least the investors that I know and who I believe are typical of the investors in the country generally — are not liable for income tax. With the high cost of money at the present time and the big dividends paid for it from private and other sources, I think the small investor should get an increased rate.
That is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, not of my Department.
But it is the job of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to make a case to the Minister for Finance. It could be said that every Department must look to the Department of Finance, but it is part and parcel of the function of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to bring to the notice of the Minister for Finance, or whoever else has to be consulted, matters such as this. That is why I raise it in this discussion.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the question of closing sub-post offices and, according to the Minister's statement, some 28 or 29 sub-post offices have been closed since 1st January, 1967. A case could be made for closing some rural post offices where business is not too brisk, but a case could equally be made, in some instances, for keeping them open.
We must bear in mind a number of factors. The small post offices, it is true to say, are family possessions. They are handed down from father to son and from mother to daughter. The subpostmaster's office is a nice perk; it is something you can pass along, and there are very few jobs you can pass along to your family. At the same time, they are giving good service, in the main, and there is a little shop attached to the post office. The question arises then: is it fair to the family to take the little office away from them? Is it fair to the people in the immediate neighbourhood, many of them elderly people, to ask them to travel four or five miles to the nearest town or village? There are several questions to be examined. The matter must be examined from the social side as well, and I would ask the Minister to be slow in this policy, which seems to be gathering momentum, of closing small rural offices. Once an office is closed there is no hope.
I would find fault with the public relations section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in that respect. An office was closed recently in Castletownkinnagh. People made a petition to the Minister but of little avail. Various TDs were asked to intervene. We had in mind to discuss the position with him but we did not get an opportunity. Where people have a grievance, even though he may think the grievance is not well-founded, there is an obligation on the Minister to listen to them or at least to listen to their representatives. The number of occasions on which he is asked to receive a deputation is small as far as we are concerned, and I do not see why the Minister should deny us that right. I do not like this dictatorial attitude at all on the part of any Minister or any government.
The Government are only over there because they won a few seats more than those of us who are over here. If one went into more detail they are in office with a minority vote. There is not much room for Ministers to adopt a too-dictatorial attitude. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Childers, is not as bad as another of his colleagues who seems to be a past-master in that line. I do not like making these references but I think the Minister who must go out and get votes to get himself elected will appreciate that the rural Deputy has to get voters to elect him and that he has certain rights and obligations and that people who feel they have a grievance go to him and that he is quite entitled to have the ear of any Minister or meet any Minister or officials of his Department whether or not he is politically opposed to that Minister. If any other system were to grow up democracy would fail.
I do not want to digress from the Estimate but the matter arises to some extent in regard to deputations. The only deputations now received, with few exceptions, are deputations from political friends. That is a bad trend which I mention in passing. Perhaps, in the not too distant future we shall have more to say on that subject.
As regards the provision of telephone kiosks in villages, this matter has been raised on several occasions and headway has been made in providing them. I think that all villages with populations of over 250 have been catered for but I should like to see the service extended to smaller villages. We have a number of such villages ranging from 250 in population downwards. People who ask for this service — and I know it myself also — tell me that the big advantage in a kiosk is that you have more secrecy, more confidence and privacy than you have in going to a post office where there is no telephone box and where you must speak in the presence of others who may listen to your conversation. I support expenditure of public funds on the provision of such telephone kiosks in all centres of any reasonable size. Where you have a group of 15, 20 or more houses in a village, or a population from 70 upwards, telephone facilities should be provided.
Another matter that I was asked to raise here is this. In some offices which are possibly doing more business than others and where business under different headings has increased, staffs are not adequate. I am not conversant with how staffing is arranged or how numbers are increased or reduced according to business trends but I should like the Minister to know that there is feeling that in some big offices staffs are inadequate.
I conclude by repeating that the Post Office and its employees are giving the people a satisfactory service. It is very pleasing for Deputies to hear those in public employment being commended and I think that has been the case for the most part here as regards employees of the Department. It is not pleasant for any Deputy to listen to complaints, particularly if these are well-founded. It is far preferable for people to have something cheerful and good to say about the public services because no matter what differences exist in this House on political grounds, or in personal views on different aspects of public life, we must remember that we are living in a very small country of 2.8 million people. We have several of what may now be described as medium-sized cities with a greater population than we have. We should first remember that we are Irishmen and that we owe an obligation to our country to co-operate for the general wellbeing. It is pleasing then to find people in this service giving good value for money because it is incumbent on all of us, from Ministers down, to ensure that we give good value for the money we get also. If that does not happen and if everyone, no matter what his avocation, does not pull his weight, bad as many of our complaints are at present they could become much worse in the not too distant future.
It was to be expected in this debate that the position of the broadcasting authority and RTE should come under discussion. I want to say a few words in regard to what has so far been said. Television is a powerful propaganda medium. The Television Authority was established by statute and it was by statute intended to be independent and objective and that is written into the Broadcasting Act. In the discussions when that Act was going through the Dáil the effect of propaganda through the Broadcasting Authority was fully understood. For that reason, under the Act, the Broadcasting Authority was given a charter of independence.
It is worth bearing in mind that before the establishment of the Authority and before the Act there had been a commission appointed by the Minister to advise on the problems connected with broadcasting and the difficulties and so on. That was a broadly-based commission, advisory in its nature, composed of people of standing, prestige and independence and, in particular, drawn from all political Parties. The commission was no private preserve of Fianna Fáil nominees—quite the contrary. It was composed of people of standing and significance and, may I add, inevitably once that description is applied, many of them were supporters of Fine Gael. When the Broadcasting Authority was established by statute to be independent and objective, what happened in relation to the statutory Authority? Whatever may have been the position about the advisory commission the statutory Authority very quickly found excluded from it, when persons were appointed on political grounds, anyone who was not a political supporter of the Government.
The result was that when RTE went into operation it did so under circumstances of suspicion which arose directly from the constitution of the Authority. After that, we had a series of incidents in which, although the administrative machine under the Authority was endeavouring to operate as the statute had designed, there was direct ministerial interference. This led to widespread public anxiety. It is against that background that one has to consider the Minister's observations at the opening of this debate in which he, first of all, criticises the manner in which interviews have been conducted, with particular reference to interviews with politicians and public men. I am sure the Minister's remarks were made bona fide but, with the particular background in mind, such a ministerial opinion must cause one to raise at least one eyebrow. Why is it now suggested that interviews with public men have been unfair or biased and not objective? I know this is not the same thing and I do not offer it as a parallel experience to that of a Minister, but I must say from my own experience that I have never found myself subjected to anything I considered unfair. I frequently found myself subjected to searching inquiry; I welcomed such inquiry because that was why I was there. I wonder what is signified by the Minister's suggestion that these interviews have not been fair and objective. I hope we are not going to produce dummy shows on television, a kind of Punch and Judy show with people acting a part, having previewed loaded questions before the start of the interview so that nothing will emerge except a dreary sameness. If that is the kind of interview which will be regarded as proper and in accord with ministerial dignity, then it is about time we closed up shop.
That would be very dull.
It would be very dull, indeed. While one may at times feel a bit hurt, a bit chivvied and annoyed, because one's ministerial dignity may have been ruffled a bit, it it infinitely better to put up with that as they do in Britain. Remember "That Was the Week That Was"! Interviews on that show were tough and penetrating, searching and seeking for an answer, and God help the public man who tried to wriggle and avoid giving a straight answer because he finished up filleted, and rightly so. I do not think we have anything to fear in encouraging an objective interview. I am certain that the canons of good sense and good manners have not been offended against, certainly not in anything I have seen or anything I have experienced. I cannot help being suspicious of the Minister's strictures in view of the background and the history of the operation of the Television Authority since television was set up. Not that I have any complaint: I am sure those who work in Montrose are of all shades of political opinion, but their politics never appear. I believe they have given a genuine, objective public service in discharging their duties.
The Minister seemed to go on to thinking out loud and he had a few strictures in relation to the kind of news offered on RTE. I wonder a little about this. What is news? I suppose the Minister and I could exchange a great many views and opinions as to what news is or should be. Some two or three weeks ago RTE regarded the general election in the North as news. Why should they not? It was significant in the current state of the country and its future. The general election was fully covered in each news bulletin and in the feature operated under the new section in RTE. It was news. I have no doubt but that a British general election would receive the same treatment. Why should it not?
I remember in December of 1965 the presidential election in France being fully reviewed and discussed by RTE. Why would it not be? It was news.
I have no objection to that.
No. I am glad the Minister has no objection to it. I do not see how he could have, but Deputy Lalor, his Parliamentary Secretary, is prompting him now about that to which I shall refer in a moment because Deputy Lalor, no doubt, has an uneasy conscience. Of course, I am going to speak about our Presidential election because it was not news in this country. Why was it not news? Because the Telefís Éireann Authority gave an order to the Director General of Radio Telefís Éireann that he was not to carry on any news from RTE any part of the Presidential campaign. Why? Because there was, of course, only one candidate campaigning. At the same time, the Director General received a direction that he was to carry any public news and very properly so, in relation to the other candidate, because he was the President of Ireland. In the course of that campaign the President appeared often and in many different places but, from the beginning of April, 1966, to 2nd June, 1966, there was not one reference —good, bad or indifferent—on any of the news bulletins of RTE to the Presidential election campaign. What then is news? When I find the Minister being critical about what they are doing now I say to him to let those in authority examine their consciences.
A very bad precedent was set up. I never referred to it before. I let it be. I let it rest. There is no way in which it can be rectified. I hope that never again will we have any interference with the communications that should exist in this country between events and the people. We should not have that kind of censorship, because censorship it was. For the record it is worth saying that the news room in Montrose, every day without fail, received a manuscript from me and, every day without fail, my information indicates, it was offered for use in the news room and, every day without fail, the direction from the Authority prevented it from being commented upon. I do not think it will ever occur again.
Perhaps, like the making of an omelette you cannot make one without breaking eggs, which is all right for the omelette but not very good for the eggs, and maybe in this regard I was one of the eggs that had to be broken in order to have an experience and, having got over it, to learn from it. I hope that never again will we have such an abuse of our Broadcasting Authority and that, whatever the motives may have been, there will be a resolve in the future to respect the independence of the Television Authority, and to respect the good sense of those who are in charge of the dissemination of news. I am sure they appreciate the kind of things in which the public take an interest, the happenings among our own people and inside our own land, certainly, and the significant happenings outside it. I would be very slow to suggest any method of censorship.
I agree that at times things may be shown in too much detail, and events shown which I doubt that the people have a general interest in. These things happen not only in a broadcasting service such as RTE but in our news-papers, and no one would suggest that there should be censorship of newspapers or newsprint. Generally when mistakes are made there is a reaction, and a code, a standard, gradually becomes available and, indeed, becomes automatic. It is better to leave things to develop naturally and inevitably. When we are left alone and try to be fair to one another, our standards are generally good, reasonable and fair. If we trust the Authority which we set up by statute to do their job, without pulling at them, or hinting at them, or threatening them from time to time, it is much better in the long run, and we will have a much better service.
The last speaker referred to the coverage given by RTE of the election in Northern Ireland. I would go even further and congratulate RTE on the coverage given on that occasion, and on the very detailed information put across to the public in the 26 Counties and, also, on the coverage given to the events which led up to the general election in the North. It was very well done in the first place. The coverage given to the events of 5th October in Derry city, and to the events on the route marches, especially the events at Burntollet Bridge, was necessary. Not only was it a news item of value, but it was necessary to bring the younger generation in the South of Ireland up to date on modern history in the north of our country.
The relaying of the general election which was fought there, and the issues which were involved, to the viewing public in the 26 Counties was of value for many different reasons. I think there is not a good understanding among some of the younger generation of the position in Northern Ireland. For that reason, I certainly congratulate the RTE Authority on the work they did on that occasion, on the quality of the work, and the great benefit that came therefrom.
I would urge on the Minister that telephone kiosks should be provided at our frontier posts. Large numbers of people who travel cross-Border go through these posts, and especially the major ones, on business or on pleasure or as tourists. When they come to the frontier they must of necessity stop there, and there should be available to them some means to communicate with people at their destination to make arrangements and so on.
Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses should all be covered by social welfare insurance, and that is not the case. It is true to say that some of them are covered by social welfare insurance—they are permitted to affix social welfare contributions—while others are not. The type of persons who is not, is the person who has a post office and side by side with it he runs a small business, a small shop for the sale of cigarettes, some groceries, and so on. Usually it is a very small business but, unfortunately, at the moment the running of this business precludes him from affixing stamps which in the long run is a great loss to the sub-post-master or mistress.
Another occasion when these people are precluded from the benefits of the Social Welfare Acts is, in the case of a sub-postmistress, if her husband is employed. She is not allowed to affix social welfare stamps. The Minister would be well advised to make it a general rule that all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses would come under the social welfare code and have social insurance stamps affixed.
There is the very vexed question of auxiliary postmen. This type of employment, which is not permanent and which in many cases is badly paid, is unsatisfactory. Some temporary postmen have incomes as low as £4 or £5 a week. It has been argued that they can do other work before they begin their runs, during the day or when they have finished their runs. It does not apply in many cases. Above all, we have the unsatisfactory position that an auxiliary postman who has given all his life to the service of the Post Office—these men may commence work in that position as young men and go on until 70—must retire without pension in respect of long years of service to the Department. Whichever means the Minister can adopt to remedy this sad position will have my wholehearted support. It is not satisfactory and it should not be allowed to continue.
In the main, I join with other speakers in telling the Minister that, generally, we are very pleased with the running of the Post Office service and with the Post Office employees. It is a good service which gives value for money, one in which there has been vast progress during the past ten years. Admittedly, very large sums of money have been invested in the service but the return is commensurate with the investment.
When the Parliamentary Secretary intervened in the debate last night he referred to the Lissadell Avenue appointment of a sub-post-master. I do not know much about the details of this appointment or of the political outlook of the people involved, but, again, today, when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the appointment he said that at the time the applications were received one of the applicants was not a widow. He clearly conveyed to me, however, that at the time of the appointment she was a widow.
No.
I understood from what you said that she was a widow.
At the time I appointed the postmaster the other applicant was not a widow.
Everybody knows, even the Parliamentary Secretary will admit it, that all appointments of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are nearly always completely and entirely political appointments. I should like to tell of an incident which happened in my adopted constituency during the recent referendum. The Minister for Education addressed a number of meetings there. There were two post offices vacant for which sub-postmasters had to be appointed. The Government Party were cute enough not to fill them prior to the referendum, the net result being that we found all the applicants for these post offices out trying to do a bit more than each other to secure the appointment. That is what this type of thing is lending itself to.
The Parliamentary Secretary said today that another Government had set up a committee to deal with this. I take it he meant the inter-Party Government. He said the normal procedure was for that committee to submit three names. As I said to him last night and today, sincerely, it is time that this committee recommended only one person and then let the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, whoever is in charge of the appointment, accept the one name and appoint that one person. That would be the proper procedure if the Government are anxious to say these are not political appointments. I and any sensible person in the House or outside who knows anything about these appointments realise that the appointing of auxiliary and part-time postmen, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses is completely and entirely political.
At the moment, in my adopted constituency, there is a vacant post office in a place called Kilglass outside Rooskey. I would gamble a halfpenny to a hayseed that this appointment will not be made until after the next general election because there are a number of applicants and the Government Party will keep them on a string so that they can secure whatever support is going prior to the general election.
This is a great state of confidence in our side.
If these people are sensible they will know what attitude to adopt because I know what will happen to the present Government Party at the next general election. It is hard to convince the diehard element of the Party, the people who make up the Fianna Fáil Party in Kilglass, that their days are numbered.
Good sound country, Kilglass.
Good for Fine Gael. You will have every one of these people looking for the position of sub-postmaster. Each year since I came into the House I have been critical of the telephone service in the West. I agree it has improved tremendously during the past couple of years and has improved even in the past 12 months. There seems to be something wrong in some particular areas. Take people living in Carrick-on-Shannon. If they want to ring any place in County Cavan or even Carrigallen in County Leitrim they seem to have to go through a circuit at Mullingar. They seemingly get through from Carrick-on-Shannon to Mullingar, as far as I know, but then they go back up to Dublin and down to Cavan. The normal delay is a half an hour and, even when you do get through, I am damned if you can hear a word that is said on the phone. I think I wrote to the Minister's Department on three different occasions during the past 12 months about this service. Nothing has happened to rectify it. I appeal sincerely to him to try and get this situation rectified because it is desperate at the moment.
With regard to the question of kiosks, last week or the week before I had two questions in, one about the erection of a telephone kiosk at Croghan, a village in County Roscommon. Up to this there was a Garda barracks there but now it is closed. This village is situated roughly five miles from Carrick-on-Shannon and four miles from Elphin. Admittedly there are one or two private phones in the village. I suppose the population would be in the region of 50 or 70 people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when he replied to my question, told me there was no need for a kiosk in this village. I certainly cannot agree with him. If a person wants to ring for a doctor at night, or even in the day time, he has to go in and ask a person with a private phone if that person will give him permission to use it. If the people who have the private phone do not know what to charge and if they are foolish enough to ring the exchange it will cost that person one shilling extra. This thing has gone completely daft as far as rural Ireland is concerned.
I had another question about a place called Ohill Crossroads in County Leitrim which again is situated about three miles from Ohill and four miles from Keshcarrigan, a very rural spot in County Leitrim. Those people have no phone service in that area at all. I think I would not be unreasonable if I asked that people who live in remote parts of rural Ireland should have a telephone service brought at least within one mile of them. If there is not any service there the obligation is on the Department to provide kiosks in the rural parts of the country. We have only to go across the border into Northern Ireland to find plenty of kiosks available there.
There is a policy operating at the moment to close Garda barracks. Gardaí have always been helpful to the public with regard to the telephone. You have the Croghan Garda Barracks closed. Other professional people, such as dispensary doctors, always had phones but we actually have no dispensary doctors at all in rural parts of the West of Ireland. Those people normally had a telephone. Now the ordinary citizens are deprived of the service of those phones. On top of that the Minister's own Department, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, is closing small rural post offices. One would find it hard to disagree with that because, as the Minister said, they are uneconomic and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said here today, the only people who are inconvenienced are the old age pensioners.
There is always the person who normally uses the telephone and he is very much inconvenienced. If a farmer has to ring some insemination centre in the morning, he now has to get transport to take him maybe another two or three miles instead of having the telephone beside him. The greatest grumble seems to be from the people looking for the service of the artificial insemination centres. I fully agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the old age pensioner is inconvenienced as well by the closing of those small subpost offices. He said today he is looking into the matter and there may be some way of overcoming that situation.
We find in the last year that rental charges of telephones have gone up by 10/-. We also find that a personal call has gone from one shilling to two shillings. People who are getting a good telephone service do not grumble so much about it but people who are getting the type of service I have referred to, those people living in North Roscommon and South Leitrim, have a lot to grumble about. As I said, it seems to be easy enough to get through quickly to Dublin, but if you have to get through to any other place, say Galway from North Roscommon or South Leitrim, or if you have to get to Cavan, the line seems to be hopeless and the delay seems to be in the region of half an hour. I certainly think those people have a genuine grievance.
Quite recently I had the experience of making a phone call from a coin box and for some unknown reason the line broke down. I was told by the operator I would have to insert, I think, another two shillings. Unfortunately, I had not the two shillings in my pocket. She said I had no alternative, and if I inserted two shillings I could write in to the Department and get it refunded. I am telling the story the way the operator told it to me. I do not know whether she was within her rights or not. She told me there had been a change recently. It can be most inconvenient to people who are on the phone to find that the line breaks down through no fault of their own, but through the fault of the Department, and yet they have to find the same coins again in order to get through. I think it is most unfair to ask those people to write in to the Department and seek a refund of the money.
Again, like most other speakers, I feel auxiliary postmen have got a raw deal right down the years. Some of them, as has been said today, have been working for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for 50 years. Some of them are retiring each year and each month, and it is desperate to think that those people do not qualify for a pension. The auxiliary postman, the unestablished postman, the temporary postman, or whatever the category he comes under has given a terrific service to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and to the people of this country. He had to travel a big, rough rural area in desperate weather conditions, sometimes in snow. On occasion he may have been provided with a bicycle but on numerous occasions he could not use it due to the weather conditions. Those people should qualify for a pension. The Parliamentary Secretary today, when he intervened in this debate, said the matter was with the Department's General Council and he felt it was not proper for him to make any comment on it at the moment. The number of those people has become very small and I do not think it would cost the Exchequer such a tremendous amount to qualify them for a pension. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary's intervention will only delay this further and that, ultimately, no decision will be made. Certainly, it is not treating these people very fairly.
I remember, and as another speaker said here today, the inter-Party Government in 1956 gave pensions for the first time to county council and forestry workers. It was a pity they did not go further and give pensions to these auxiliary postmen but, seeing that they did not do so, the obligation is on whatever Government or Party is in power to provide these people with pensions.
I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the information that a new type of uniform is being prepared for postmen. We all know that the old type of uniform becomes shabby in a very short time; therefore, we are glad to hear that a new type of uniform is being prepared. I hope that this new uniform will be delivered to the postmen in the very near future. I think I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that shirts are to be supplied.
I said that it had been suggested that shirts would be supplied with the open tunic and that the matter is being looked into.
I am glad to hear that this matter, too, is being looked into. Before concluding, I should like to make a brief reference to Telefís Éireann. I certainly would not like to think, and it would be very hard to convince me, that the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would make any effort to interfere with Telefís Éireann for political reasons. I doubt if any official of Telefís Éireann would allow the Minister to interfere if that official felt that the interference was for political reasons. However, be that as it may, when one remembers the coverage that was given to the Presidential Election in France, to the American Presidential Election, to the General Election in England and to the recent General Election in Northern Ireland, one is bound to ask oneself why the same amount of coverage was not given to the Presidential Election in this country a few years ago when Telefís Éireann failed completely to give any coverage whatsoever to this election. To my mind, the reason for that was that in the Irish Presidential Election there was a one-candidate campaign. About that time also we were celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Easter Rising of 1916 and this particular candidate was finding himself in many places on many days and, seemingly, the Telefís Éireann cameras found themselves in the same places at the same time. However, I believe that it was most unfair coverage as far as the candidate which this Party nominated was concerned.
It is only fair that I should say in this House that on the numerous occasions I have been to Montrose the utmost courtesy and help, technically and otherwise, was given to me. The officials were prepared to help me in any way they could and I should like to put on the record of the House that I was very pleased with the way in which I was treated there.
Reference has been made during this debate to the manner in which people, particularly politicians, are interviewed on television programmes. Politicians in 1969 will have to make up their minds, if they have not already done so, that they must take the rough with the smooth. If there are people in politics who are not prepared to do this, it is an unfortunate situation.
It has often occurred to me that if some of the proceedings of this House were televised, so that the public at large might see the amount of work done by Deputies not only in the House but at committee meetings, in meeting constituents and so on, they would have a much clearer idea of the problems facing us. At any rate, it would do no harm and for that reason the Minister might give a thought to this. The televising of some of the proceedings might also help towards a better attendance in the House. In any case it is worth a trial.
In my opinion, more time should be devoted to agriculture on television. I admit that a certain amount of time is devoted to it but a few more programmes on long winter nights, showing the farming community how to improve farm methods, would be of great help. I would recommend that Telefís Éireann give a little more time to our main industry—agriculture.
I should like to add my voice to the voices of the other Deputies who, during this debate, have mentioned the desirability of a pension scheme for auxiliary postmen. Most people nowadays if they are in any sort of a worthwhile job qualify for a pension and, therefore, I think consideration of this question regarding auxiliary postmen is long overdue. Many of these men work as many hours as the established postmen and yet, at the end of their service, they have no pension to get. It is time that the Minister gave consideration to this problem so that something might be done to help these people, many of whom continue to work up to the age of 70.
While I am on the subject of auxiliary postmen I wish to say that I find in recent times, particularly in my own constituency, that some of those men become redundant because postal vans are being introduced in particular areas. I raised questions about three postmen in Beaufort last summer. Two vans were put on where three auxiliary postmen were laid off. They were men who were middle-aged, 45 to 50 years of age, and they had no hope of getting jobs at that stage of their lives. They were smallholders and the money they were getting was helpful in rearing their families and in bringing in the necessary money for that purpose. The extraordinary thing is that, since the van service has been established, we now find that the post takes half an hour extra. In some areas it takes up to 1½ or two hours extra. Those men started early in the morning and finished at 1 p.m. People who used get their post at 1 p.m. now get it at 3 p.m. This is a step in the wrong direction.
If I remember rightly the Minister made a case at the time that there would be a saving with these vans. I am dubious about any saving that can be established in this way. I know enough about transport, as I deal extensively with transport in my own business, and I cannot see that two vans can be operated much cheaper than the wages of those three postmen who were getting less than £20 per week between them. Even if there was a considerable saving, I still think it is our duty and it would be better to keep people employed here and not to bring about a position where we are keeping foreigners employed manufacturing these vans and the parts used for them, in addition to having to bring in the necessary petrol and oil to keep the vans going, thus straining further our balance of payments. I would ask the Minister when further cases like this arise, particularly in rural areas, that he would take a very good look before he makes any changes of this kind. It is not in the national interest. The pay those postmen get is very necessary for them at their particular age when they are trying to keep going and rear their families.
Other speakers mentioned telephone booths. I am rather concerned with post boxes in particular areas. It is necessary that they should be established in some outlying areas. In the case of Dungegan, near Ballinskelligs, people have been anxious for three years to get a post box in the village. The post office in Ballinskelligs is about a mile further on. There are quite a lot of visitors in the summer time on the eastern side of the bay and they have to go about 1½ miles into Dungegan and a further mile into Ballinskelligs to post their letters. I would ask the Minister to try to see that a post box is provided in this particular place.
I pass now to telephone communications. We are getting quite a good service in Kerry but of late one thing is happening continuously. We find when put through to Dublin no sooner do we get the speaker on the other end than we are cut off again. This is costing businessmen considerable amounts in extra charges. By the time they are reconnected they are not getting even a three-minute service out of a six-minute charge. I do not know the reason for this but I find it happening in my own office consistently. We have many reports from people in Tralee and Killarney about the same thing happening there. It is something which should be examined because the charges are pretty stiff without paying for service we are not getting.
Recently I have been asked by the people of Milltown to try to get the phone service there improved. It appears that some time last year two of the lines were transferred to another area from Milltown. It is next to impossible to get a phone call in Milltown now, particularly during the summer period. We have an insemination station attached to Castlemaine creamery which has over 200 calls a day at the peak period. When that is operating they practically take over the complete lines. I would ask the Minister to look into this aspect again in Milltown and see if it can be put right. There is a general grievance there that the people who want to get on to the insemination station cannot get on. I am informed it has taken two days at a time to get on to the station there.
In reference to Telefís Éireann, as a previous speaker has stated, when I was out at the headquarters we found the personnel there exceptionally nice and co-operative. In justice to them, we could not say too much on their behalf. However, there is a grave feeling throughout the country that at times things are shown which are not in keeping with our Irish Heritage or with our Irish way of life. Many of our people resent and object to this type of material being presented. We saw references made by the Bishop of Galway some months ago to some programmes put on at that particular time. Time and again there are references to things that do not go down too well and people wish that something should be done about this. We hold a proud position in Europe, and in the world for that matter, for our clean way of life and our clean outlook on living. We can certainly do without some of the material that is portrayed on Telefís Éireann at times. There is not very much of it but attempts are made to inject unsuitable material into shows.
Some people try to project it and they are quite aware of the feelings of our people. It is something that cannot be accepted. The sooner it is stopped the better for everybody concerned. We should not try to emulate the way of life in Britain or the material projected on the British television service, or some of the material projected on the Continental service. I would be sorry to see the day when much of that would be seen in this country. I have a feeling that many of our people throughout the country think that attempts are being made from time to time to put unsuitable material on and that it is the thin end of the wedge. Maybe some of the people concerned with putting on these shows think it may be the material that the Ireland of the future needs.
It is our duty, while we are here— those of us who are old enough to be a link with the Ireland of the past and the Ireland of today—to try to prevent this type of material from creeping into what otherwise is a very good service. By and large, we have a very good service with very good programmes. I have seen some television programmes in Britain and on the Continent and I can safely say that from the inception of RTE, we have had very interesting programmes. However, this crude material from Britain or from the Continent, or from wherever it comes, must be kept out of our programmes. Beyond that, I have very little to say. On the whole, the Post Office has come a long way and is doing a very good job of work. With the adjustment of some minor faults, and when we have the automatic service, there will be a vast improvement in the telephone service. A colossal amount of business is operated through the Post Office and, in present circumstances, it is inevitable that there should be a shortage of connections and lines.
I shall be glad if the Minister will take note of the points I have made here this evening. By and large, a very good job of work is being done throughout the whole country by this Department.
First of all, I want to mention a local constituency matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is the continued complaints from Cork city and county, and from the south generally, about the lack of some regional television station in the area. One would expect that, after seven years, Telefís Éireann would be thinking of expanding its activities on regional lines such as exist in Britain. I trust it is not entirely local pride that leads me to believe that if Telefís Éireann is beginning to think along those lines then Cork is the natural centre for a regional station. Cork does feel rather cheated at the moment in that regard. It feels it is not getting enough coverage.
I should like to mention to the Minister the continued failure of Telefís Éireann ever to approach the International Choral Festival held in Cork City, which is a most colourful international festival. Telefís Éireann has never approached it at any time but now it is being forced to do so by the BBC who actually are coming over this year to do a film on it. The Minister might well look into the regional services which are to be given to the country in the future.
It is a very good and heartening sign to find this debate proceeding for such a long period. It shows that Deputies are beginning to realise the real importance of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and that this is no longer an Estimate on which we can talk only about temporary postmen and various other such matters. I am referring, of course, to the growth of both radio and television. Television has been with us now for some seven or eight years. We must realise that it is the most powerful medium of mass-communication that any nation can have at its disposal. Whilst I should resent most vociferously any interference by the Minister with Telefís Éireann for political reasons, it is of the utmost importance to the country generally, and, indeed, to Telefís Éireann, that we should come in here during the debate on the Estimate for the Department and express ourselves plainly about what we have seen and heard on Telefís Éireann. That opportunity arises only once in every 12 months, and I intend to avail of it now. I imagine that the bright young men of Telefís Éireann would be the last to quarrel with me if I make what might be looked upon as a litany of complaints. At the outset, I want to make it quite plain that that is not so.
The young men in Telefís Éireann who are avid for good television will themselves tell you that the ordinary man leading an ordinary life is not good television but that the exceptional person who is leading the exceptional life and doing the exceptional thing or saying the exceptional thing makes good television. Similarly, there is no point in my standing up in this House and saying that the television people are doing a wonderful job. They are doing a wonderful job but, when I have said that, I have said everything one can say about them. I think Telefís Éireann has an intelligent young staff who are ready to work themselves very hard when the occasion arises to do the best job possible. Having said that, one has paid the ultimate tribute to Telefís Éireann. The only reason I mention it again is to make it quite plain that, when I proceed along the lines upon which I intend to proceed, I am not embarking on a campaign of vilification of Telefís Éireann. I want to mention some cases to which I take exception. Every Deputy who has similar examples should do likewise.
I was glad that the Minister, when introducing the Estimate, invited not alone Members of this House but the public in general to make their views and their criticisms known to Telefís Éireann. That is a terribly important right which resides in every citizen of this country who finds he has some objection to make to something seen or heard on television. If he has a telephone he should immediately make the protest through that medium. If he has not a telephone, then he should write to, or in some way communicate with, Telefís Éireann, pointing out what he thinks of the programme in question.
The Irish people must realise that our television service is not the property of this House, is not the property of the Minister, is not the property of the Broadcasting Authority but is the property of the people of Ireland. Therefore, it is the right of the people of Ireland to ensure that it is run along lines with which they agree. It is very important, on an occasion such as this, that we should express ourselves as plainly as we can. Freedom of speech is something of which Telefís Éireann is very proud. Time and time again, some of its teams have stood up very vociferously for freedom of speech. If it means anything, it must include criticism, where criticism is warranted. We should be sadly lacking in our duty if we did not freely express criticism of some television programmes to which we take exception. I underline the word "some" because the usual run of programme on Telefís Éireann is one to which exception cannot be taken. However, there were occasions when I took exception to a programme and when other people took exception to some programme or other and I think that that should be mentioned.
On broad lines, I should like briefly to refer first to the advertising section of Telefís Éireann. It is agreed, and Telefís Éireann know it, that Telefís Éireann have "pinched" much of the advertisement revenue of many newspapers, particularly of the provincial Press. It is reckoned that they have taken at least 50 per cent of the advertising revenue of the provincial Press. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to an unfair aspect of this matter. Newspapers have to meet both turnover tax and whole-sale tax — an impost of about 14 per cent of their expenditure. It is absolutely unfair that Telefís Éireann should be able to compete with newspapers in this respect without having to pay some similar impost on their advertising revenue.
Talking about advertisements, I have heard many people objecting to the continual beaming of advertisements for alcoholic liquors obviously at teenagers and particularly at female teenagers. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter. I have always felt that Radio Telefís Éireann should take a more prominent part in familiarising the people of the north of Ireland with their brethren in the south. I have been advocating that since the days when the inter-Party Government were in power. I thought that the publicity given to the northern elections might possibly have been done with a view to popularising Radio Telefís Éireann in the north because otherwise it was vastly overdone and its importance was exaggerated by the amount of coverage given to it by Telefís Éireann. Had it resulted in more viewers in the north, in Belfast and other places, viewing Telefís Éireann and learning more about us, in having got the habit during the election of looking at Telefís Éireann, then I would accept that as a reasonable explanation but I am told — and I would be glad if the Minister would advise us whether or not this is true— that by some arrangement, either with UTV or BBC, Telfís Éireann is not beamed on and cannot be received in most of the Six Counties. I was perturbed when I heard that from a pretty reliable source.
Telefís Éireann have now been operating for the last seven years and the effects of an operation such as television cannot be neutral. The results of its being beamed into the homes of every man, woman and child for seven years must be significant both in regard to their lives and to their homes. There cannot be any neutral outcome from this operation. We must realise that many people who prior to the advent of television took a reasonable interest in their newspapers now rely on Telefís Éireann for news in a package. They rely on the service for the ten minutes or the quarter of an hour of news and at a later stage rely on some discussion programme to mould their views. I do not know what the effect of this has been but I was glad to hear the Minister issuing a timely warning to Telefís Éireann about some of the matters which arose from time to time in the course of these programmes.
We know that there has been a change in the outlook of young people growing up. We cannot blame Telefís Éireann entirely for that but neither I imagine can we absolve them. Anything that is constantly seen and heard by young people is bound to affect their minds. Films, books, plays and so on, have all had an effect on the minds of young people and I feel that Telefís Éireann has done the same. We cannot escape from the fact that this is so. It is inevitable when the windows of the soul have television beamed on them. It is bound to affect them. For that reason I would expect that the people running Telefís Éireann would have a keen sense of the destiny to which they are called. There is no doubt that they can affect in a mighty way the entire outlook of the people. I am glad, too, that the Minister advised Deputies and people generally to watch those who are in charge of the destinies of Telefís Éireann and make sure that it is operated without detriment to the people generally.
I often wonder when the Minister will take a second look at the Broadcasting Authority Act. It was introduced eight years ago when television had not even started. At that time this House had little knowledge how television would affect the people, how it could be run, and very little knowledge about what defects the measure might contain. Having had experience for the last seven years of the manner in which the Act operated, the Minister might look at it and see if it does not require modification or extension in various ways.
Deputy Barrett will appreciate that it is not in order to discuss amending legislation on an Estimate.
I am not necessarily suggesting amending legislation; I am saying that the Minister should see if it is necessary to amend legislation. The manner in which the Broadcasting Authority is selected is certainly open to abuse. I do not think that the manner in which it has been selected has given us the best Broadcasting Authority we could have. There are distinguished people in many walks of life who would gladly serve on the Broadcasting Authority and who would serve it and the country well. They would give more prestige to the Authority itself in the eyes of the people if they were drafted on to it.
The news bulletins on Radio Telefís Éireann are largely excellent but sometimes I wonder if they are not somewhat expensive by having recourse to a round-up of European news in which we hear broadcasters from other countries simply giving us the news we have already got from news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press and others. I do not think they add anything to the programme but I would exclude Patrick Cosgrave in London who does an excellent job of work at that end. I should like to say that the reaction to the Minister's speech introducing this Estimate met generally with concurrence. It shows that the Minister has the sense of responsibility which one would expect from a Minister in this high and important office. I do think that the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs is one of the highest and one of the most important in the country.
Controversy we must have whereever free men congregate. It would be a sad day for us if controversy were in any way to be stifled but I feel that on occasions there is a spurious stirring up of controversy on television programmes purely for the purpose of controversy, because it makes good television. This is something which Telefís Éireann staffs generally should consider, whether deliberately contrived controversy is a good or a bad thing. The opposite of controversy is that certainty and that tranquillity which we in Ireland have always felt about certain matters, religious and otherwise. We have had a certainty in our faith, whatever faith we have had. We have had a tranquillity from our way of life. It is not good that any organisation, particularly an organisation such as Telefís Éireann, should deliberately set out to create an atmosphere of uncertainty. It must be said that some of the programmes on Telefís Éireann have helped to contribute to the feeling of uncertainty which is notable in the country at the moment.
I should hate if we were to lose that feeling of security which we have had over the years. I know that some of the professionals would say that my view is a kind of smug, insular sort of view which belongs to what they call the establishment which is a word used to denote anybody who disagrees with those who call themselves progressives. It is an important thing that we should continually advert to our traditions, to our way of life and that we should try, in so far as we can, to maintain that without having artificially stimulated controversies which give rise to uncertainty.
There are a few specific instances to which I would like to refer to which I myself objected and many of those to whom I spoke objected. My real objection to them was that the views expressed and to which I objected were given without anybody being present on the panel to controvert these views or in any way to question them or to explain errors in these views or to explain the generality of the views expressed and to explain their mistakes. One such occasion occurs to me. There was an English professor on the "Late Late Show" on 3rd November last. He remarked, as I think we could all remark, that television had accelerated a change in habits and morals in England. I suppose in a way it is a warning to those of us here who have some responsibility for the running of television by virtue of our membership of this House, that this professor, who seemed a sensible sort of man, would come over here and would say that not by way of warning. He simply said that television had accelerated a change in the habits and morals of the people in England, particularly the young people. One of the results of this acceleration, he said, was that quite a number of his unmarried lady students were coming to him in increasing numbers and excusing themselves from lectures for a fortnight as they were having a pregnancy. He was not at all offensive in what he said or the way he said it. He was blasé and unmoved and he expressed no views for or against it but he did put forward this state of affairs as one which should be taken as being all in the day's or the night's work as the case may be. When people like that go on television to express such views I feel that those in charge of the panel should make sure there is somebody else in the panel to say that that is not the way of life in Ireland and to express a view as to why that is so, to express a view pointing out to the younger element who might be listening to the programme good and sufficient reasons why such situations should not be taken with equanimity.
Apart from that sort of unbalanced programme where you have nobody to answer a question you can also have the slanted programme. There was an occasion within the past 12 months when a programme was produced which comes within the category to which I refer. It was one by John O'Donoghue and Brian Cleeve. It was on 18th September. I think it was part of the "Into Europe" series. They progressed to Italy where they purported to examine the religious life of the people of Italy. I never saw anything quite so dreary or so fairylandish. The first part of the religious discussion related exclusively to superstition about St. Michael appearing to a bull in some part of Italy and the second part of their religious investigation of the way of Catholic life in Italy was a most dreary series of pictures of the late Padré Pio, the stigmatist. They did not show any of the more elevating facets of his life. They showed him in most dreary circumstances surrounded by the most dreary old men and old women, obviously in a furious temper and hitting the old men and old women with the belt around his middle. Certainly there did not appear from this programme to be one good thing to be said for Catholicism in Italy.
Then they went to Germany where they spent some time interviewing Dr. Hans Kung, who bitterly criticised the existing establishment of the Catholic Church. Then they proceeded to Sweden where they showed life at its brightest and best in so far as young people are concerned, the most lively, enjoyable life. They showed the sale of contraceptives and various other things and indicated, by the films that they took, that life in Sweden was a far better and brighter thing than life either in Italy or the Catholic portion of Germany which they visited. They finished up by announcing that in Sweden God was dead but they never mentioned anything about the insanity or the suicides or the other matters that have arisen as a result of the denial of the existence of God by most Swedes. I thought it was a miserably slight and inadequate investigation of the countries involved. I think it must have made a damaging impression on the impressionable minds of young people who watched the programme.
I should like to ask the Minister if he could find out something that I have been asking myself since last Sunday night week when nearly half an hour's programme was devoted entirely to an interview with Tariq Ali, the well known international disturber and radical socialist. There was nobody on the programme except Tariq Ali. He was examined by an interviewer who was in no way oppressive, in no way questioned any of his views.
We were given half an hour of a programme during which Tariq Ali spent quite a lot of his time abusing what he called our bourgeois establishment and during which he expressed the view that had Jesus Christ been permitted to live he would have turned into the Che Guevara of his time, that he would have been a guerilla fighter. Certainly, half an hour's free advertisement to a person such as Tariq Ali should not be allowed unless somebody else is on the programme to explain, to question and to controvert what he expressed. The Minister might certainly look into this. The sad thing about this particular programme is that it came after sports news on a Sunday night when so many young people are staying up to watch their favourite sports programme.
One of the reasons I mention it here is that the views expressed by Tariq Ali are very similar to some of the views expressed by a member of the staff of RTE. I refer the Minister to the report of a meeting of the Christian Left association known as Grille here in Dublin which was reported in the Irish Times on 22nd October, 1968. Mr. Seán MacReamoinn who is a member of the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann, I understand, and who had dealt with religious programmes, spoke at that meeting. He said, according to this report:
...that in this country when we were faced with the fact that we were Christians, we had wondered where our political allegiance lay.
"There must be a moment in the life of every Christian who is not completely overwhelmed by the layers of Establishment cake when he asks, `Am I, as a Christian, concerned with politics?' If he believes that Christ came to change the world, then he must believe that Christ is revolution.
"In Ireland a Christian must ask, `Am I a revolutionary or am I happy to go back to my tiny Christian kennel and think that it does not matter what happens?' To be a Christian you must realise that your social obligations are not to be satisfied by private good works — you must become involved in society," he said.
There is another part of that report of the meeting of Grille to which I should like particularly to refer the Minister because it says:
Mr. Jim Fitzgerald, television and theatrical producer, claimed yesterday that there were people in RTE who were being persecuted by the Special Branch. "I could name names," he said, "and the people should be here, but they are so fed up with the whole thing that they would not bother their backsides to be present."
The report continues:
Mr. Fitzgerald said that in Ireland the Leftist Catholics had been responsible for progress in television. He said that some of the best social material had come from the religious programmes.
As an example of political influence in television, which Mr. Fitzgerald said was "colossal", he mentioned the practical destruction of the programme, "Seven Days", and the refusal to send teams to Vietnam and Biafra.
"The newsroom people are all old-fashioned Catholics who can be frightened. Political influence is most easily executed through religion and it is the old type of religious ones who are used to an authoritarian State who are most easily influenced. You have `yes men' in charge of RTE and you get very little honesty in television."
Mr. Fitzgerald said that most educational institutions were being run by religious in this country and he described the system as "monstrous".
I do not know if these are the sort of people whom the average Irish man or woman would like to see consciously or otherwise influencing the programmes on Telefís Éireann and I should like to know from the Minister — I tried to get this information from the Minister for Justice on his Estimate — if it is a fact, as stated by Mr. Fitzgerald, that Special Branch men are following members of the Radio Telefís Éireann staff because I take this view of the Special Branch that if they do follow people they do not follow them for the fun of it; they are paid by the State not to follow people whom there is no reason to follow and if we have an unstated number of people on the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann who are of such calibre or belong to such category that it is thought fit that the Special Branch should investigate their activities the Minister should tell the House exactly the type of activities that are suspected and the type of activities that are involved.
The Minister did indicate in his speech introducing the Estimate that he intended to bring some pressure to bear on Telefís Éireann in regard to the manner in which they were carrying out some of their duties. I should like to know how he is going to do this. The Minister cannot influence the Television Authority. Under the Broadcasting Authority Act he has no authority in any way to interfere with Telefís Éireann except to direct them on occasions to give time for speeches by Ministers of State and the Minister should make clear to the House exactly how he purports to have any influence over Telefís Éireann whatsoever. There is nothing in the Broadcasting Authority Act to enable the Minister to do so except, of course, section 21 which empowers the Minister to set up an advisory committee. I should like the Minister to state to the House whether he intends to do that or not.
Having regard to the dissatisfaction with the Broadcasting Authority itself generally voiced in this House the Minister should certainly take some such steps. It is necessary that some very special steps should be taken to keep an eye on the manner in which Telefís Éireann generally is conducted. In Britain, there is the convention that broadcasting is periodically subject to inquiry by a Royal Commission and errors can then be corrected. We have no such system here except the annual review to which we can subject the Minister on an occasion like this.
I agree with the Minister that on some occasions a number of those who interview people on Telefís Éireann have been objectionably oppressive. I agree with those on my side of the House and in other parts of the House who say that politicians who go on Telefís Éireann to be interviewed should be ready to take the rough with the smooth. I agree completely with that. There is no reason whatsoever why any politician who goes to Telefís Éireann should consider that he is to be pampered or in any way treated softly because of his position but there have been occasions which most of us here could recall upon which Ministers of State and Leaders of Parties and members of Parties have been questioned in a manner which was objectionable and I myself remember one occasion at least when I considered that one of the interviewers was being deliberately rude to a Minister of State. I do not think that that should occur. I am mentioning it as an exceptional case in the hope that there will be fewer and fewer exceptional cases of this nature.
There is one other thing that I should like to mention and which I mentioned on the Vote for the Department of Education. I have been very struck with the success of the "Telefís Scoile" programme. It occupies only about 5 ½ hours in the week. I suggested to the Minister for Education— and I want now to suggest to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he should take the matter up with that Minister — that television could be greatly extended to include early university lectures.
I understand that in Japan this operates very well. It would be an excellent thing if, by the use of television, we could avoid extending, at immense cost to the country, our university premises on the gigantic scale which is foreseen. If television develops along the lines which I foresee in this regard the vast expansion envisaged for university premises will not be necessary. Above all, it would be useful in that it would enable young men and women who are really just once removed secondary school children to remain at home during the early years of their university education and not have to be exposed to many of the disrupting and upsetting forces to which they are exposed when they come lonely and alone to cities like Dublin and Cork. It would also have the effect that the young men and young women who did the early years of their university course on television would succeed and continue their studies only if they were the very best types of students. There would not then be the expensive dropouts which we have at the present time in our universities, because the young men and women who started their early university education through Telefís Éireann would come to their university centre on the strength of their examination results and there would be a fair amount of culling of the useless material on the way up.
I doubt if the best use is being made of modern communications in coast life saving. The recent loss of the Sea Flower in Kenmare Bay gave rise to much criticism of the Minister's Department. It was said in more places than one that, had there been radio telephones available or had the existing communication centres been properly used the lives of those who perished on that ship could have been saved. I would be glad if the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Power, would reopen the inquiry into the loss of the ship to see whether or not it is a fact that, due to a breakdown in communications between various agencies who were working to save the lives of the crew of the ship on that occasion, the best service was not given and as a result valuable lives were lost.
I am sorry that the Minister did not get in, but I have been trying to get in since 4 o'clock yesterday and I do not know why I was passed over on so many occasions.
One would think from the statements made by speakers here that every Member of the House was entitled to criticise or to suggest alterations in the set-up in RTE with the exception of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The publicity given to the Minister's statement in relation to interviewing and interviewing techniques on RTE and the comments made by many Deputies are a complete distortion of the actual situation. We, the Members of the House, have a duty to ensure that our television service is an efficient and effective one and, by our suggestions, we should endeavour to make it more efficient, if that is possible.
A certain amount of foreign material comes on our television screens and some of the techniques applied by foreigners rub off on our own people, sometimes to our advantage, sometimes to our disadvantage. We are a distinct people and the methods used should be suitable to our society. While I personally never had any complaints against the people who interviewed me, I suppose we can all apply to ourselves the saying: "If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen", but I am sure most of our politicians are able to deal with the situation if the heat is turned on. The type of interview conducted by Bunny Carr, Joe Fahy or Ted Nealon puts people at their ease. These interviewers put me at ease even listening to them. Interviewers who put those being interviewed at their ease will extract more information than the quick-fire type of interviewer we have seen from time to time. I do not condemn one type or the other, but all of us, including the Minister, are entitled to put forward our own views. It has been stated that there were occasions when people were treated rudely. That is quite so and must be evident to any person who listens to any of the RTE programmes.
The radio programme "Today in the Dáil" is excellent. There should be a repeat broadcast early in the morning. Many people who are unable to listen to this programme at night because of viewing television would welcome the opportunity of hearing this programme the following morning. This is a well-produced programme and great credit is due to Joe Fahy for the manner of its presentation.
There are programmes like "Outlook" in which I have a very keen interest. The "Outlook" programme is very effective. On occasions it has not been handled in an altogether satisfactory way but that is only my own point of view. Last night it dealt with the drug problem. It did convey a message to me and, I am sure, to the many parents who saw it. The "Late, Late Show", in its present form, has outlived its usefulness and needs some alteration. Frank Hall's programme, "News Beat", is very entertaining, if one overlooks its emphasis on toilets. Generally speaking, it is a good programme which could be further developed.
The "Killyraggart" type of programme is one that has done a grave injustice to Irish actors and possibly to the staff of Telefís Éireann. We should be more selective in regard to programmes. Mistakes will be made and we can learn by our mistakes, but this kind of material does not go down well with the Irish people.
Sensationalism seems to be one of the keynotes which seems to impress the personnel at Montrose. Groups of people who are trying to pull down our democratic way of life seem to be able to avail of the television cameras on any occasion, and public representatives in the city are aware that certain groups of individuals endeavour to force their point of view on public representatives, the threat always being: "We have the television cameras on our side," and generally they are right.
I wonder have these people any influence at Montrose. This has happened to me on many occasions. We are aware of the situation at Sheriff Place and in other parts of the city where television cameras were in attendance some months ago when people endeavoured to impede the demolition of derelict property. The Minister should send out the cameras to Sheriff Place today to show the public the transformation there and the accommodation now available there despite efforts to impede the work by those groups who would pull down our democratic institutions, our way of life. I agree that there is not any reason why they should not get television coverage because there are two points of view, two sides to every story, but they get excessive coverage. Many of the groups operating here have no interest in the welfare of the country but they seem to have the services of the television cameras at all times. Again, I ask if they have any special influence at Montrose.
There are one or two suggestions I should like to put to the Minister, particularly in relation to this city. I should like to deal especially with the development of centres, special accommodation, for aged people. They present a distinct problem. They are accommodated in large groups, 70 to 80, in these centres, and I suggest that in conjunction with the local authority, the Post Office could provide an effective network of early warning by the installation of some simple type of apparatus which would connect these aged people with the social workers and the police so that these people, living on their own, would be able to contact the authorities in cases of blackguardism or vandalism, in this vulnerable section.
It should be remembered that in accommodating these people in these centres we are keeping them out of public institutions and are in that way saving a lot of cost. I suggest that this cost could be diverted to the provision of a type of communications network like I have mentioned which would keep them in easy touch with social workers and with the police in cases of necessity — in cases of vandalism or break-ins or in cases of sickness. I ask the Minister to examine that. I know there may be complications but I do not think there are.
I wish to say a few words about telephone kiosks at this stage. I consider the present type of kiosk to be like a pigeon loft which defaces many areas. Many of the areas in the city now being developed are the result of large scale planning, yet we still see this monstrosity all over the place. In each such highly developed area the kiosks should be specially designed to fit into the architecture. I am sure the Post Office have the necessary planners to design kiosks to suit individual areas. Most of the present kiosks stick out like sore thumbs in these areas. This monotony of design should be got rid of and I ask the Minister to consider it.
On the same subject, I wish to deplore the vandalism that takes place in regard to these kiosks. The kiosks are necessary sometimes for the protection of life and property but when one of the structures is damaged by vandals it should be re-erected as soon as possible in a suitable location nearby, where it will be safer from vandalism. I know an area in which a kiosk was removed 12 to 18 months before it was provided again and in the meantime fires occurred and ambulances were needed in the area. People had to walk a long distance to the nearest kiosk to call for help. In these cases of vandalism, it could happen that the family of the person responsible for the destruction might be in need of the service at some time.
There are various services provided by the Post Office which are not adequately advertised. There are, for instance, telephone attachments for the assistance of the hard of hearing about which very few people know. I was not aware of it until I read a booklet recently. It is available at a cost of only 2s 6d a quarter and it enables the hard of hearing to hear conversations on the telephone. I am sure the Post Office have other services which would be of equal benefit and I suggest that they should be better advertised.
Another service which the Post Office could usefully provide are home safes on the same lines as those provided by the Post Office Savings Bank and the ESB. These could be kept in the home and could be taken to the counter and opened. Such a service would be availed of gratefully by a number of people and I ask the Minister to consider its provision.
I wish to comment on the Jacobs TV Award. This firm deserve great credit for trying to raise the standard and quality of RTE productions. It means that the personnel of Telefís Éireann are striving to reach higher standards in order to get one of these awards. This might be regarded by some as a type of advertising, but I think it is a desirable type and it is one which could be imitated with advantage. Jacobs deserve every credit.
With regard to advertising, detergent advertising is, I think undesirable. Fantastic claims are made. I believe advertisements should stay close to reality. There should be a fair assessment of the qualities of the product advertised. There is very little difference between detergents. Some of the advertising is to be deplored, especially the kind of advertising depicting the typical English council house with the product being put across by some English actress. Our own people could do the job quite well. That is an aspect into which there should be some examination made. Even if Telefís Éireann extract more money from these advertisements, it is we who pay in the last analysis because we pay for our television service and we also pay for a dearer product as a result of more expensive advertising.
There is still large-scale interference in some areas due to private workshops or, in some cases, to hospitals. I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that suppressors are fitted to eliminate such interference.
Every effort should be made to ensure that Irish-manufactured goods are used in Departments of State. We have the engineers and the technicians and we can manufacture the goods. There will be every co-operation from both employers and workers in the development of any new project which will give additional employment.
Once again, I want to say I was thoroughly disappointed with the system of selection. Deputies can walk in here and sit for two, three or four minutes and they will be called on while others who sat here from four o'clock yesterday are passed over.
This has been a most interesting debate. First of all, I want to thank Deputies, on behalf of myself and my Parliamentary Secretary, for the very kind remarks they made about us personally. I should also like to express my appreciation of the very considerable praise given to the many thousands of people who work in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The praise offered of their courtesy and attention to duty has been a delightful experience. The criticism offered has been extremely constructive and helpful. Criticism, of course, there must be of a Department which is in a constant state of growth and which employs many thousands of people, a Department which has to face all kinds of problems from one year to another. I very much appreciate what Deputies have said in regard to the Department.
Deputy Barrett asked in what capacity I could say anything to Telefís Éireann. It should be obvious. As Minister with powers of general supervision under the Act over Radio Telefís Éireann, I act for the Government and, as the Board has to have the confidence both of the Government and of the people in general, it is quite possible for me to comment on programmes and on the development of Radio Telefís Éireann, just as Deputies have commented here in the House. Indeed, the concensus of opinion on the part of responsible Deputies and responsible people in the country as a whole, together with my own views, should enable Radio Telefís Éireann to gain a good idea of the progress they are making and of the criticism they must experience from time to time. I have an absolute right to make approaches to the Board of Radio Telefís Éireann on the general development of the television service which is, as Deputy Barrett said, so important in the life of the community.
With the exception of what I said about interviewing, hardly a Deputy questioned the rest of my observations on Radio Telefís Éireann. Nobody could take seriously those Deputies who pretended to believe I intended to muzzle Radio Telefís Éireann because it was I who gave Radio Telefís Éireann its freedom. I believe television and radio have the right to discuss every problem in a constructive and challenging way. I have always said that and my observations on the Estimate were made deliberately with the intention of giving the public my views about certain matters in relation to which I think Radio Telefís Éireann needs to take care.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I was not referring to the interviewing of politicians, or other people, in the sense that I thought it was wrong to interview them challengingly and to ask them penetrating questions. I made the statement because it was perfectly obvious from what people on both sides of the House had said to me that a habit had been instituted in RTE of rude interviewing, and I mean rude interviewing. This has now stopped. I wanted to get consent from everyone. I do not want to have the Frost type of interviewing in this country. It is totally unsuited to our needs.
Hear, hear.
A Fine Gael Deputy interpreted what I said exactly correctly when he said: "If the Minister means the David Frost kind of interview, then I agree." I hope I have made that clear to all those who will be reading this debate. I delight in challenging questions by interviewers, and I quite agree that Members of the Dáil have got to face up to challenging questions. They have to face up to penetrating questions. It is a matter for obvious commonsense as to the extent to which any Deputy or any Minister should be given some idea in advance of the kind of questions he will be asked. If it is on general matters of politics or things in his Department about which he should know everything then he does not need to be given some idea in advance of the kind of question he will be asked.
If it is a matter that relates to very detailed operations in a big Department or questions on some topic that has not come his way for some time, whether it be a study of policy or implications then, as in the case of the BBC, it is only right and proper that RTE should give the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in advance at least some heading so that he would be able to reply on matter of great detail where he would need to get his facts straight. Everyone knows it is a matter of commonsense. Otherwise, I certainly believe in the kind of debate where no one is given any intimation in advance of the kind of questions he will be asked because it makes for good interviewing and should interest the public.
I want next simply to say what I have already said before that, under no circumstances, would the RTE Authority deliberately alter programmes so as to benefit the Party of the Government in office. That would be a ridiculous concept. They could not get staff to do it in one direction or the other, in a small country where everyone almost knows everyone else's business. The idea that I would give a secret direction to the RTE Board and that they would suddenly start directing the whole process of radio/television programmes on matters of public interest in the Fianna Fáil direction is ludicrous. Incidentally, if that did begin to happen, there is no surer way by which we could lose a general election or a by-election, or lose our entire reputation, than if it became known as a fact that we were trying to manipulate the RTE service for our own use. I hope everyone understands that. I do not think we should do it from the point of view of principle, and it certainly would not pay us to do it.
I do not think I need say very much more. If I were to mention particularly Deputy Dillon's speech and Deputy Barrett's speech as giving one point of view about television, and the speeches of a number of other Deputies who spoke in a broad way, and if we were to take a broad consensus of what has been said about television in the House during this debate, and eliminate the obvious political window-dressing which, I suppose, is inevitable, fairly good advice has been given to the Board of RTE as to how they should proceed. That is why I feel satisfied that, having made that statement and come to the House, on the whole, a great deal of what I said has been accepted. This is obvious from the fact that most people did not comment on it in an antagonistic way, except those who wanted to try to suggest in some way or another that I was becoming, in the words of the lady on the "Late Late Show", something akin to Goebbels. Incidentally, I thought that comment was ludicrously ridiculous. However, if she chooses to say it I cannot stop it. It introduced an element of fantasy into the whole debate in so far as anybody wanted to quote it.
Do not try. It is great fun.
The only Deputy who really went to town on it was Deputy L'Estrange. I will not say any more. I am very glad that Deputies spoke of a certain tendency which is inevitable in any communications organisation to occasionally sensationalise events because they know that the more sensational they can make them the greater the kick the viewers will get from them. That is one of the things I mentioned in my speech. I said there should be balanced discussion, balanced argument and constructive solutions. One cannot get them if there is an overwhelmingly sensational approach to the various problems we have to face.
One Deputy suggested a radio university. That is a long-term project. I am doing all I can to see that radio plays its full part in education. Another Deputy suggested the development of civic education. There are features broadcast which are useful from the point of view of teaching civics. I hope that will develop further, too.
About half the programme, from one point of view, is serious. If you take into account various items, including serious drama, about half the programme is serious. If you use the word "serious" in a more strict and limited sense, about one quarter of the programme is serious. Over half the programme is now home-produced, and that compares very well with a number of other television services abroad. A Deputy asked questions on that.
I should say that I agree with some Deputies that some of the imported canned American programmes are rather awful. Equally some are very funny. There has been quite a marked improvement in the character of the canned programmes used by RTE in the past year and a half or two years, and I hope the standard will go up. I should add that the cost of producing drama at home is tremendous as compared with importing canned drama. Of course, they have to take account of their financial position. Even the great BBC with its immense resources, and spending about five times as much as we do per hour for each programme, has to make use of foreign canned material in order to fill up their programmes.
Deputy Dunne for a brief moment dragged in a little notice that was passed within the press department of RTE which suggested that there would be a muzzling of debate on the referendum whereas, of course, this was entirely a misunderstanding. The intention of the notice was that, as there was going to be a very long campaign, they could not overburden the ten minutes or quarter of an hour of news at the beginning of the campaign, by reporting a very large number of speeches in which there would be inevitably repetitive material. Of course, there was no intention on my part, or on the part of anyone, to prevent discussion on the referendum or to prevent speeches being reported. I think a very good job was done.
Deputy Dockrell raised the question of televising the Dáil proceedings and said he was against it. I am not going to encourage it and I have no further comment to make. I do not think that under our circumstances it would be a good thing at the moment, but other people may think differently. I will not encourage it myself.
Some Deputies asked why an increase in the licence fee may be necessary. Of course, there has been inflation in this country, as everyone knows, for a number of years and the cost of the programmes has increased inevitably. There has been a levelling off in set growth. There is a deficit in sound radio. The fees have been unchanged since 1963. The television fee is equal to less than a halfpenny per programme hour and I think it is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment in the world. However, no decision has been made about increasing the fee.
I should mention that I hope we will have another campaign for collecting licence fees from pirates, from people who do not pay. It really is a fact that a wonderful machine will arrive— there is some delay—which will detect infallibly television sets which are operating. That will help us to collect more licence fees from those who up to now have escaped attention. It should increase the income of RTE but, as I have said, no decision has been made about an increase in the licence fee.
Deputies referred to TV advertising of liquor. The manner in which it is advertised is a matter for the Authority to decide, but no hard liquor is advertised and I think for the moment that is a reasonable compromise. Only beers and wines are advertised on television. Plenty of soft drinks are advertised as well. I do not think I could interfere in that matter at present.
Somebody asked me whether we could give up advertising altogether on television. The licence fee would have to be increased to about £12 if there was absolutely no advertising on Telefís Éireann. The fee would have to go up to £12 instead of £5 and that would be too much to ask people to pay, so we must have advertising.
There was very little criticism of programmes in the Irish language. I should like to mention that a great deal has been done to improve programmes in the Irish language and the House might like to know that in feature and current affairs programmes the estimated Irish language content at a recent date was 20 per cent. That is considerable progress. There is a great deal of Irish language content right through the programmes and I think having it introduced in various different types of programme is being praised by those who have a modern attitude towards the development of the language.
Deputy Geoghegan complained about television reception in County Galway. We hope to have a new transposer erected near Clifden before the end of the year.
Deputy Barrett mentioned the 14 per cent tax on advertising and the transfer of advertising from newspapers to RTE. I believe the Minister for Finance is receiving a deputation on that subject. I think that is all I need to say on RTE.
I was very pleased at the way my remarks were received as a whole and once again I can give an absolute assurance to the people who for windowdressing reasons allege that I intend to muzzle RTE. The debate shows that a great deal of what I said was understood and accepted by the Dáil.
Deputy Dockrell asked me about the personnel status and the basic organisation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. This is still under examination and I think it will be looked at by the Devlin Commission. It is a very complex matter. The question of whether it would be wise to make of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs a State corporation is immensely complex — there are so many people employed, so many issues to consider that the Devlin Commission may have something to say about it.
Deputy Dr. O'Connell said we do not seem to have a proper development plan for the telephone service. We have a plan ranging over a five-year period. It takes about five years to design an automatic exchange system, to order the equipment, to have it delivered and put into commission. But we do have a very definite plan in that respect. Deputy Harte asked about the possible re-routing of the telephone traffic from Donegal to London via the Six Counties. We find that this is not practicable. Direct dialling from Donegal town, Lifford and Letterkenny into the British system through Belfast would be very difficult and the internal trunk network in the Six Counties would not be able to cope with such a diversion of traffic from Donegal. So we have to continue putting the traffic through Dublin.
Deputy Harte also asked about the hours of service at exchanges. Ninety-eight per cent of all telephone subscribers have a continuous service. The extra cost of providing a 24-hour attendance at small exchanges would be out of all proportion to the likely revenue for the calls made. However, the position is fairly satisfactory.
The Deputy raised a question in regard to the ugly appearance of overhead wiring and of median wiring and telephone poles adjacent to housing estates. It is beyond us financially to bring telephone wires underground through existing housing schemes which were built without ducts being provided. In new housing estates where ducts are provided in advance we can do it and we have been arranging for underground lead-ins in estates where telephone density is highest. We are not only providing ducts along the roads but also leading into the houses and this should help to reduce the extent to which we shall have overhead wiring which, I agree, can be ugly.
Deputy Dillon commented on the state of the telephone service in the constituency which both of us represent. There have been a great number of additional circuits provided in the county and I believe the service should be satisfactory.
Deputies asked many questions about the advance rental requirements for long line connections in rural districts. We have reduced the advance rental payable in certain cases because I felt it was excessive. With the increases in basic rental charges, I felt it was essential to make concessions. In the cities and some provincial towns where the installation is within three miles of the exchange, there is one year advance rental; where it is more than three miles there is a three-year advance rental. In the case of other exchanges, where the installation is within one mile, the advance rental is one year, where it is one to two miles, it is two years and over two miles the advance rental is three years. The five-year term is applied where the cost of installation is totally abnormal. Those advance rental payments are not so severe as they were before the increases in the telephone charges.
How much per annum would that be?
This is just a single advance rental requirement when the telephone is installed. Deputies referred to the low informative content of the telephone directory. A number of people complained about the lack of human quality in the introductory portion. There have been a number of improvements in the past few years.
I never can understand it. I do not know whether it is my fault, but I do not think so.
I have had difficulty myself. It is being examined. Deputy James Tully complained about the sale of advertising space in the new classified directory being handled by a commercial concern. The firm who did this are experts and we had to make use of a commercial concern with the special qualifications and expertise necessary for this type of work. The firm have been able to produce classified directories in other countries and our decision in this respect was reasonable in the circumstances. We had a few complaints about some of the sales staff of this company who, it was said, misled subscribers in regard to the classified directory. The matter was taken up with the firm and Deputy Tully can be satisfied there will be no misunderstanding in the future because his complaint was insignificant.
Telephone kiosks were mentioned. I can tell Deputy Tully and other Deputies who made inquiries that they are disinfected daily. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked so many questions about Cavan post office and exchange that I am glad to tell him — he said there were great difficulties over this—that tenders for the building were invited and today is the latest date for the receipt of the tenders for the new Cavan post office. Deputy Dockrell referred to the quality of the telephone service. I want to make it clear to the House, although everybody spoke very praisingly about the telephone service, that we still have a great deal to do to reduce the number of subscriber dialling faults and the officers of the Department are engaged in a re-organisation of the maintenance side of the Department, making use of the latest techniques. We have reduced very greatly the percentage of faulty dialling which takes place throughout the whole exchange system within the last two years. We have not yet got it down to the low percentage I would like to see it at in comparison with, for example, Sweden but we are making progress and I want to make it clear we take very seriously the need to reduce the extent of faulty dialling that can be found in places and at certain times.
Does that include cutting in on other people's calls?
It includes all types of faulty dialling, anything which goes wrong which is not the result of the number being engaged at the other end. It covers a great many types of fault. As I have said, we are gradually reducing the extent of this.
My experience is there has been an improvement on that.
I am very glad the Deputy says that. We have made a very great effort and this effort is still being made by the officers who have to deal with installation and construction work and they have managed to divert a sufficient number of staff at all levels in order to deal with that because there is nothing more infuriating than a high percentage of faulty dialling. There were a number of observations made about the development of kiosks throughout the country. The kiosk system is expanding. Virtually all towns with a population of 200 or more have at least one kiosk and many smaller centres now have a kiosk. We very rarely have complaints that in an emergency there is a lack of communication in any rural area. I have heard hardly any complaint whatever of life being in danger through that. The kiosk system is gradually extending but we do not want to involve ourselves in very heavy and excessive costs through installing kiosks where they will not be economic. Incidentally, we are having a survey made at the present time on the whole kiosk position.
Deputy Geoghegan complained about the telephone service in the Clifden area. This has really been a headache for us. I am glad to tell him that a contract will be placed shortly for aerial coaxial cable from Galway to Clifden. The present carrier system is subject to frequent interference due to weather in the area. I think there will be an improvement there and Deputy Geoghegan, who had numerous complaints to make, can be satisfied about that.
Deputy Crinion complained about the new permanent issue of stamps. I think they are quite superb. They represent very beautiful Celtic ornaments and manuscripts. They are most unusual as compared with those of any other country. A Deputy suggested we should have beauty spots. We have had pictures of beautiful places in Ireland but in a space the size of a stamp it is very difficult to portray any scene which would look exclusively Irish because of the size of the stamp, the difficulty of getting the ambience, the colour and the light and the shade right in order that one could be quite certain that it was Ireland and of course, one could have a round tower or an old tenth century HibernoRomanesque church or a Gallus oratory. One could have that on the size of a stamp which would look unique. Otherwise it is very difficult to get individuality into Irish scenic stamps. I think I have answered most of the questions. In regard to any questions which have not been answered, I will take note of what the Deputies have said.
Vote put and agreed to.
Vote reported and agreed to.