In the early stage of my reply on this Bill I stressed the point that the sum indicated in the Bill represents the scale of the effort required to improve, extend and modernise our telephone system measured in terms of 1973 prices and costs. If, as is only too likely, inflation should erode this position further, then it will be necessary before the completion of the five-year period to introduce a new Telephone Capital Bill so as to ensure that the effort required is completed. I stressed that, costly though it is, this is an effort that we cannot afford not to make. It is essential for us economically, for our progress and indeed, our survival, to modernise our communications system if we are to compete in Europe. It is particularly essential if the areas of the country which are less economically advanced are to catch up. More than any other areas these regions need quick communication. Business will not go to certain areas; investment will not take place in them unless the telephone service in particular can be relied on and unless their communications particularly with Europe and with other markets are adequate. These are the main reasons for the very high requirement in this Bill.
I do not intend to try to answer all the points made in the debate but I would like to deal at least with the major ones. I should like to amplify my previous comments on certain telephone capital estimates and expenditure figures for recent years in the light of remarks made by Deputy Brugha about a clash, as he thought, with figures previously quoted. The clash is only an apparent one although I recognise that the appearance was adequate to justify this very legitimate query by Deputy Brugha.
When general capital requirements for 1971-72 were examined in 1970, the Post Office stated their requirement of telephone capital to be over £11 million, as I said on 20th June last. This figure was made up of £10.73 million which was sought in July, 1970, plus £0.5 million extra needed for wage increases arising out of the 12th round. Only £9.48 million was allotted and, accordingly, the restrictions imposed in 1970 had to be maintained. In August, 1971, it was agreed the restrictions could be lifted and, in the event, expenditure exceeded £11 million. The telephone capital allocation for 1972-73 was, first, £13.48 million. Subsequently this was increased and the out-turn was £16.9 million approximately.
I am glad to recognise my predecessor's efforts in seeking, and to some extent getting, substantial increases in telephone capital allocations. However, I am at a loss to understand why he considers I have been unfair in my references to severe capital restrictions in 1970-71. This is no more than he said himself at the time. I refer him to his own remarks on 18th November, 1971, as quoted at column 2442 of the Official Report of that date:
Coming now to the question of costs, the programme of new works for last year had to be curtailed to conserve capital. Nevertheless, it cost about £9.5 million. The original allocation for the current year was also fixed at £9.5 million approximately, but this was far below requirements and efforts to keep to it have reduced the rate of connection of new telephones. The Government have recently agreed to increase the allocation to £10.73 million and I hope to get more next year when heavy forward commitments for exchange and truck plant will mature.
I should like to make it clear in this connection that I am not criticising, and have not been criticising, my predecessor. I know Deputy Collins made every effort to obtain the necessary capital for his Department and that he warned of the dangers and the effect for years to come of cutting back telephone capital commitment. If I have emphasised this here it is not for the purpose of making a party political point but to emphasise to all concerned the importance of maintaining the flow of telephone capital, which is the purpose for which this Bill was intended.
Deputy Brugha raised a more technical point and I should like to give him an answer. The Deputy said:
The Minister has not referred to the type of equipment being installed. If he has any information on this matter I should like to know if it is the latest solid technology, or are we importing mechanical equipment. This is merely a matter of interest.
The equipment being provided is of various kinds but, broadly, it falls under three heads—exchange, trunk and subscribers' equipment. It is the most modern type available for its purpose and for our conditions. In the last 11 years the policy has been to instal cross-bar equipment in all new exchanges and to phase out the Strowger equipment which, although fully satisfactory, has not all the advantages of cross-bar. As a matter of interest, I might mention that Strowger equipment is in use extensively throughout the world, including the USA and Britain where over 95 per cent is Strowger equipment. Both systems are electro-mechanical. The Department are keeping in close touch with the development of electronic-type exchanges in other countries. We do not propose to introduce telephone exchanges of this type until we are satisfied they have been fully proved elsewhere and are suitable for our conditions.
Some Deputies were interested in the extent to which the £175 million will be spent within or outside the country. It is estimated about £50 million will go towards salaries, wages and allowances payable to construction and installation staffs. About £10 million will be spent on buildings which, of course, have a high employment content. Of the balance of £115 million, taxes payable here, plus stores, plant and equipment manufactured or assembled in Ireland will account for approximately £60 million. I think it is clear a satisfactory proportion of this high capital commitment will go to people in this country.
Deputies Fitzpatrick and Fitzgerald asked why the rate of return on capital has fallen in recent years. As I pointed out in my opening statement, telephone costs have been affected by inflation but telephone charges during the years have advanced less than consumer prices generally, notwithstanding very steep increases in telephone pay rates. Telephone charges were not adjusted sufficiently to maintain the rate of return of a few years ago. Increased telephone charges came into operation on 1st October last.
Deputy Wilson interrupted my opening statement last Tuesday to inquire if I would consider introducing a 2p call from Dublin to London. Such a service has been available for about two years from the ordinary telephones, that is the non-coinbox telephones in the Dublin area. The charge is 2p per 12 seconds by day and 2p per 18 seconds after 6 p.m. I indicated in my opening statement that a number of STD coinboxes have been ordered for experimental use in Dublin and the provinces and that it was hoped to provide STD boxes on an extensive scale during the next five years.
Deputy G. Fitzgerald suggested that private enterprise should provide the telephone instrument while the Department provide the cables to link them. In my Department's view, the amount of capital saved in this way would not be significant relative to the total amount spent on cabling and providing telephones. The Deputy may be interested to know that in respect of certain subscriber installation work involving considerable cost, namely the installation of private automatic branch exchanges, the Department permit private firms to instal the equipment on the basis of the subscribers bearing the capital cost.
Deputy Geoghegan referred to crossed lines and the over-hearing of conversations on some dialled calls. While everything possible is done to minimise this kind of trouble and while the installation of the additional equipment will undoubtedly help, no telephone authority in the world has succeeded in completely eliminating it. My Department aim to reduce it and I believe it will be reduced during the period of this capital development plan.
Deputies Dowling and Timmons in the course of their remarks referred to the opening of newly-laid roads in order to instal telephones. I understand this happens very infrequently. My Department keep in touch with local authorities and developers and generally arrange to have duct lines put down when new roads are being laid. We will endeavour to see this is done uniformally in the future.
Some Deputies suggested that social rather than economic criteria should apply to the provision of telephone kiosks. The present kiosk programme accepts a certain measure of subsidy for kiosks that are provided in replacement of call offices in rural post offices. I welcome the suggestions of some Deputies in response to my invitation in regard to the basis on which future rural kiosk programmes may succeed. These and any other suggestions in the matter will be carefully considered by my Department.
Deputy O'Connell referred to the problem of protecting public telephones in large residential areas and suggested that public telephones be provided for community councils or associations in the areas, possibly in private houses. I share the Deputy's concern and I appreciate his suggestion. However, I do not think a public telephone installed in a private house would be a satisfactory solution. Occupiers of these houses might, understandably, be reluctant to admit all callers late at night and, in practice, the availability of the telephones would be restricted accordingly. There can be little doubt that a street kiosk is by far the most satisfactory means of providing public telephone facilities but the problem is to keep the telephones in working order. This problem is particularly acute in large urban areas. I hope that a new type of coin box which is expected to be available early in the new year will overcome the problem. The intention is to provide the boxes in street kiosks that are subjected to a good deal of vandalism.
Several Deputies have referred to vandalism in telephone kiosks. Various measures have been taken to combat this. These include the replacement of small glass windows in kiosks by large sheets of strong plastic material, the use of steel plates in the kiosk structure on to which the coin box is bolted, the installation of continuous fluorescent type lighting and the fitting of alarm systems. A specially strong coin box was designed by Post Office engineers and given field trials in the past year. The results of these tests were highly satisfactory and the contract was recently placed for a substantial quantity of the new type of coin box which will be used to replace existing coin boxes in areas where the level of vandalism is highest. The new coin box will have a solid steel case and will be equipped with a specially strengthened handset and steel encased cord. Supplies of the new coin boxes are expected early in 1974. As regards clearing of coins from public telephones, every effort is made to ensure that the coin boxes do not become overloaded. The frequency of collection varies with the use made of the public telephone. Those which are used very extensively are cleared daily.
I referred in my opening statement to the question of the re-organisation of the Post Office and a number of Deputies referred to this. I hope I do not misrepresent Deputies O'Connell, Gallagher and Calleary as generally favouring the idea of making the Post Office a semi-State body, while Deputies Staunton and Carter opposed the transfer of functions to a semi-State body. Deputies Desmond and Fitzgerald noted the remarks made but were non-committal. Deputy Brugha did not refer to this matter as spokesman for his Party. I do not know whether it can become appropriate for him to refer to it at all in the remaining Stages of the debate, possibly not, but I should like to have an indication from him whether, in consultation or in the course of the proceedings of the House, he has given the matter some thought. I should like to keep in touch with him about it.
The Government decided at their meeting today, on my recommendation, to set up a Post Office Users' Council and I hope before too long to announce the composition and terms of reference of that body. One of the first matters which I will put before the Post Office Users' Council will be this question of the possible re-organisation of the postal services generally, this very large question, and without at all rushing them on it, because it is a very complex question, I would hope to get their recommendation on it some time next year, preferably in the first half of next year. By that time I hope I will also be able to obtain the views of others concerned including, of course, the unions, the professional organisations which have a strong interest in this.
I should like, in conclusion, to thank all the Deputies who contributed to what was quite a full debate on this Bill and to tell them that their many suggestions, comments and criticisms will be very carefully considered in my Department. I commend the Second Stage of this Bill to the House.
