Deputy Tully has 12 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Post Office Charges Increase: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Deasy on Tuesday 27 May, 1980:
"That Dáil Éireann condemns the increased postal, telephone and telex charges which will give rise to increased costs in business and industry and a general rise in the cost of living."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "take note of the commitment of the Government to spend £650 million on telephone development over the next 5 years and of the decision to increase postal and telecommunication charges from 1st July, 1980, so that consistent with the principle accepted by successive Governments the services will be self-supporting and the burden of making good a deficit on the operation of the services will not have to be borne by the taxpayer."
(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs)
The Chair may remember that the Minister took a few minutes extra and I started at 8.15 p.m. Maybe the time will be long enough anyway.
I had Deputy Tully down for 8.12 p.m. but I am not infallible either. If the Deputy wants some extra minutes I will not fall out with him over it.
Will the Minister let me know in relation to the £650 million which is to be spent in the next five years, I presume some in this year, what proportion of the increased charges will be used against funding this share of the £650 million or are we completely ignoring that? The Minister said on a number of occasions that it was always recognised that the postal services should pay for themselves. Over the years I have been trying to point out that no other service run by the State is asked to pay for itself. When there is an increase in wages for the postal staff and then an increase in the cost of services it is always pointed out that the increased cost arises from increased wages. This argument would not be so ridiculous if every other service were paying for itself.
When we left office the postal service was paying its way but that was a few years back. Last night the Minister commented that, not having taken wage and salary increases into account, the extra money which was now going to be charged would not balance the budget and would not make up for the increased costs this year. We must assume that no provision has been made for an increase in wages. These matters must have been discussed before the budget, so I just do not know how this could happen so soon after the budget. Is it not a fact that the Post Office Engineering Union had given in detail what they considered to be the minimum amount which should be provided next year for the postal service, and that that amounts to a total of £250 million? I assume that this union will be laughed off and completely ignored when the matter is being dealt with and that the Government will make up their own minds. The Post Office workers know what is wrong and when they make suggestions as to how it should be remedied they should be listened to.
I am glad that the engineering end appears to have levelled off and that we have reached a stage, after a lot of trouble, where there seems to be some kind of industrial peace there. The same is not true for the other branch of the service. I blame this on the people who were responsible for last year's strike and they were not the Post Office employees who were on strike. Somebody thought that there was a possibility of going back to the 1880's and starving them out, but it did not work out that way because trade unionists are a lot more loyal to each other than that.
In relation to the telephone services, airy fairy figures of hundreds of thousands of additional telephones are not worth a damn if we cannot make the telephone service that we have work, and at present the service is not working. I have been told that people are waiting seven or ten years for telephones. I do not know whether or not that is true but people are waiting two and three years. I have written to the Department on a number of occasions in relation to an industrial estate in Ashbourne, County Meath. Almost 12 months ago they were told that they would get 100 lines. They have not been able to get one line. When people inquire about going into the estate the first thing they want to know is about the telephone service. The telephone service there is nil and that being so it is a bit of a cod that the Minister should talk about thousands of telephones being installed this year. This is the end of the fifth month and where the Minister is going to get figures from I do not know.
It is impossible to get an ordinary telephone call without interruptions. Recently after about ten minutes of a telephone call somebody cut in and said that he was very interested in my telephone call. That person had been listening all along. Even in this House for some extraordinary reason almost all the lines I have been using have cut in on people who were already using the line and people cut in on the line when I am using it. This proves that the service is bad and that we should do something about it before we talk about additional telephones. It is very hard to ask people to pay an additional £40 rental a year when the service is so bad. Deputy Deasy last night said that to suggest that old people should pay for calls was ludicrous. To ask these people to pay for calls means that they might as well get rid of the telephone because they cannot afford to pay for it. Maybe that is the idea behind it, if people find it too expensive they might send the telephone back. It is also too expensive to ask for 10p for a local call. Not so long ago it cost an old 2p for a telephone call and it now costs a new 10p. The whole thing has got to be a bit of a joke.
I am glad that the Minister has arrived although he did not make as good a time from Navan as I, but I know the roads a bit better.
I am not a speed merchant.
Neither am I. Maybe the Minister is wise not to drive anyway fast on the Meath roads. I came by the back roads as it is a better way.
An extraordinary thing was that when postal charges were increased when we were in Government the howls of derision from the Fianna Fáil side of the House had to be heard to be believed. If Fianna Fáil had reduced charges to what they were before those terrible increases they referred to were put on I could understand the logic of the argument, but that was not the case. Now there are to be these further increases. The Minister has tried to justify the almost 50 per cent increase by saying such an increase is necessary and that there is not any reason for anyone to complain about it. Having regard to the cost of the postage stamp on Christmas cards, for instance, it is doubtful if anyone other than members of both Houses of the Oireachtas will be able to afford to send these greetings any more to their relatives or friends. A charge of 15p for a stamp for a Christmas card is much too high. If the Minister is in office by next Christmas and I doubt if he will be, he should do something about this.
I will be here but I would remind the Deputy that a stamp for a Christmas card will not cost 15p.
One Minister wasted a lot of postage on Christmas cards last year. Obviously, he was not sure whether he would be in Government by Christmas or of where he would be with the result that he forgot to put his name or the name of his Department on the cards. I must be a friend of his because I received one of these cards and I am sure there were some thousands of them sent out.
I did not send any.
I do not wish to hear the Minister say that the postal services must be increased in order to allow for increases in the wages of the workers or to hear him tell the public that they are responsible for the costs having to be increased. Also, before the Minister tells us anymore about the 100,000 new phones——
Only 60,000 this year, but we are going well.
——would he insure that those phones already in existence are working because many of them are not working at the moment.
Deputy Enright rose.
I have called the Minister of State.
As I have a good deal to say I would object to this tactic being used by the Opposition again tonight to prevent this side of the House being heard.
It has been the procedure always that a Member from the Government side is called after a speaker from the Opposition side.
First, I would assure Deputy Tully that the cost of sending a Christmas card this year so far as postage is concerned will be 12p and not 15p.
As I always close those that I send, the stamps will cost me 15p each.
The Deputy referred to Ashbourne. Today I was there at the invitation of Beta Limited at the opening of their new factory, which is a fine complex in the industrial estate, and I was able to inform the people there that, as I had informed Deputy Fitzsimons some weeks ago, 36 new lines would be made available to the industrialists in that estate. Those lines will be available within the next few weeks. Deputy Tully must be slipping up on his constituency work there.
Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to ask his officials to send me a reply to a letter in this connection which they have been hatching for the past three weeks.
Regarding the motion condemning the increases in the postal and telecommunications charges, I would remind the House that so far as local calls are concerned this will be the first increase since we were returned to office in 1977 and the reason for the increase to 10p in respect of coin-box calls is because the new coin-boxes are designed to take not less than 10p.
Will they not take 1p and 2p coins?
Without the aid of an operator the new coin-boxes will take only one type of coin, that is the 10p piece.
One would have expected the movers of this motion to have put forward clear alternatives to the action that they are condemning. Instead we have had the principal Opposition speaker telling us blandly that the charges should not be increased because of the increases that were imposed last year, and that increases would not be necessary if the services were operated properly. If we were to accept that approach the losses would have to be borne by the taxpayers generally. Is that what the Fine Gael and Labour Parties want? If it is, they should say so clearly so the public may be aware of the situation.
Would the Opposition be prepared to tell those thousands of taxpayers who took to the streets last year that they should be burdened with additional taxation in order to pay for the telephone and postal services? The approach of successive Governments to the Post Office services has been that these services should pay their way but what is being suggested in the motion before the House is that the users of the service, including business and commercial concerns of all kinds, should be subsidised from general taxation. In other words, regardless of the extent to which one avails of the Post Office services he should foot the bill in the same proportion as any other. It is important that this concept on the part of the Opposition be understood clearly by the public.
I do not see any justification for such an approach. Those who use the services are the ones who should pay for them. There is an onus on the people opposite to demonstrate how according to them the increased charges could be avoided. I have waited with keen interest to hear the formula that the movers of this motion have for avoiding these increases and for turning the services into a break-even situation. The losses that are being incurred on an increasing scale will be much worse if remedial action is not taken now.
On a point of order——
This is an attempt to prevent me from speaking.
Let us hear the point of order first.
Is the Minister reading from a prepared script?
No, but I am referring to notes.
The Minister of State is entitled to read from a prepared statement, if he wishes.
This is another tactic. I shall force my way to take my time while this tactic of the Opposition to steal my time is going on. I shall sit down until Deputy Deasy is finished. I shall take my game from them.
The Chair is in charge of the House. Both sides of the House must remember that. The Minister is entitled to read from a prepared statement, if he wishes.
Let me finish. I was just asking if it was a prepared statement, would the Minister supply us with a copy of it?
That is up to the Minister.
The Opposition may do this with the Minister, but they are certainly not going to put it over on me. I lost two minutes there and I shall get them. All we have got are general lectures from the Opposition. Since the Minister and I were put into this Department, all we have got are lectures, day in, day out. False accusations are what we have in this House from the Opposition. There has been absolutely no effort whatsoever—not even the sign of effort—from them to help us with a solution. We shall give the solution in our own way. We shall give it in a clear and positive way.
When compared with other EEC countries, our postal charges compare favourably. I am emphasising the statement made last night by the Minister. It is very important in this context. Our prices put us in the middle range. When account is taken of the standard of service here, our users are getting a fair deal.
I emphasise again the point made by the Minister last night regarding the effects of the increases in the CPI, which in the case of telephone charges will add 0.06 per cent to the CPI and telecommunications 0.1 per cent—a total of only 0.16 per cent, or one sixth of 1 per cent. What on earth are the Opposition talking about?
Deputy Tully brought up the point of profitability changing in a few years. One would think that the Post Office have been profitable, but Deputy Tully who was a member of the former Government should have remembered the position clearly. I put the facts before this House tonight and if Deputy Tully accuses me of not giving the facts, let him bring the facts to me.
One of the grounds on which Deputy Deasy condemned the increases was that he failed to see why, if the services were profitable a few years ago, they could not continue to be so now. Let me give the facts now for the benefit of the members of the Opposition. In 1973-74 there was a total deficit of £6.5 million. In 9 months of 1974-75 there was a deficit of £5.6 million. In 1975 there was a total deficit of £16.6 million. In 1976 there was a deficit of £8 million. These are the facts, and it must be remembered that in every year in which the National Coalition Government were in power we have astronomical increases up to 35 per cent. Here they are with a false face this evening, trying to glibly trick the nation into thinking that we were not doing our job to the high standard we have set for ourselves. I certainly will not take it from them and have no intention of taking it from them inside this House or outside if they so wish. In this connection, the same Deputy asked if any guarantee could be given that losses will not continue, even if the charges are increased. Of course, no such guarantee can be given. I do not claim to be in a position to fortell the future, but I would be very surprised if other revisions of charges did not become necessary from time to time in the Post Office, just as they have taken place and are likely to continue in almost every business in this country and, indeed, throughout the world.
The main argument put forward against the proposed increases in charges has been that the quality of the service is not of a high standard and, therefore, that the charges should not be increased. I do not claim that the telephone service is of a high quality. Its shortcomings, which are not a new phenomenon, are well known but Opposition Deputies have spoken about them as if they could be remedied overnight. The Minister last night gave a quotation from Deputy John Kelly in this House which exactly illustrates the point. Nobody could seriously propose this. If Deputy Deasy had read the report of the Post Office Review Group to which he referred and if he had absorbed its contents, he would know that the group examined the causes of the present difficulties and found that they were due primarily to two factors—underinvestment in the service over a long period and unsuitable organisation. The group, as the Minister stated here yesterday, gave it as their view that it would take at least five years to bring about a high quality service. That is a realistic assessment and, as the group pointed out, could not be readily achieved.
As Deputies generally know, long lead times are an inescapable feature of the development of telephone communications. Sites have to be acquired, buildings erected, exchanges designed, ordered and installed and trunk and local calling networks have to be built up. To have a high quality telephone service to-day, the necessary plans would have had to be made and action initiated some years ago. In practice, this was not done and we are now paying the penalty for that and will continue to do for quite some time yet. The Opposition cannot divest themselves of this responsibility and it is futile for them to criticise the shortcomings of the telephone service as if they had no responsibility for its present state.
The simple facts are that enough capital was not made available and investment was not given at the time for those vital factors in the telecommunications service. They are the people who were in power then. Where was that investment and where can we see it today? As Deputy John Kelly quoted in this House, if they want us to have all the telephones that are outstanding installed in one week, how can we do it? The Minister for Finance in the Coalition Government did not make the money available in his Department for the groundwork to give the service that we so eagerly desire to give to this nation to-day.
Having said that, I will set out briefly what the Government are doing to redress this position. It will be clear that the first requirement for the development of the telephone service is the availability of the necessary capital. The telephone service is a capital intensive one and without capital, no real progress can be made. The Government addressed themselves to this problem and decided to make £650 million available at 1979 prices. Deputy Deasy said that he saw no evidence that increased sums were, in fact, being made available. Let me quote a few figures which will, I hope, clear this point once and for all. The amount of capital made available in 1975 was £45.1 million, in 1976 £50 million, in 1977 £57 million, in 1978 £61 million, in 1979 £75.3 million and this year it is £100 million. These figures speak for themselves. The results of the recent increases in the amounts made available are not yet evident because of the time it takes to build up the infrastructure of the service. Results in the form of improvements in the quality of the STD service should begin to become evident from the end of this year and should gather momentum from the second half of next year onwards, as improvement schemes at present in the pipeline are completed. I shall not go much further on this point because on Friday next the Estimates will be dealt with in this House and they can be gone into in detail.
Deputy Tully made the point that the additional telephones that the Minister had said were planned to be installed in the period up to 1983 would, in fact, only worsen the service because these extra telephones would be added to an already overloaded system. That shows clearly how Deputy Tully understands or comprehends this investment. Surely Deputy Tully, a former Minister in a Government in this House, should understand what we mean when we say that we are now laying the foundation for a high quality service in every district. Surely Deputy Tully can see that this statement that they will only congest the system by 1983 is a false statement and one which should not be made in this House. Surely he does not think that the millions spent will be wasted on buildings with no instruments in them.
Obviously, the Minister does not himself understand what his Minister has said.
The Minister understands himself and he understands the Deputy and his party and, indeed, the Fine Gael Party. When in the Seanad I asked for investment in the telecommunication service, the then Minister, who is no longer in either House because he ran away from the country, told us he was about to lay the foundations for that policy but they were not laid until 1979.
But the previous 16 years——
The Deputy is coming in here making allegations——
No interruptions, please, from either side.
The Minister of State was in the Seanad and he did not know what was going on. Now he comes in here lecturing us.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Tully is entitled to his opinion but not to express it.
Because of the Deputy I was elected to the Dáil and I thanked him for it. That is on the record of the Seanad Debates and will be there for a long time. I thanked him for the major error he made.
The Minister will not thank the people who drew up the new boundaries.
I forecast the catastrophe when the Coalition were in power but the Deputy should not try to forecast my downfall because it will not happen.
The Minister is sitting on the fence and does not know what side to come down.
Deputy Deasy made numerous references to the poor standard of postal service. He said that frequently there were letters in the newspapers complaining about the service provided by the Department. In the last four weeks monitoring of the postal service has shown that over 80 per cent of first-class letters are being delivered by the first working day after posting, and 98 per cent by the second working day. Taking into account the fact that over one million letters a day are handled by the Department this adds up to a very high standard of service. The standard aimed at is 90 per cent delivered by the first working day after posting and the balance on the second working day. The standard aimed at for the parcel service is 95 per cent delivered by the second working day. Recent returns show that a 93 per cent rate is being achieved. I appreciate the efforts of the people in the postal service to bring those figures to the point they are at now and we look forward to their co-operation to make it an even more fascinating figure and bring it to the highest record ever witnessed in this country.
We are not the only administrators having difficulties with the postal service as is often quoted in this House. A recent authoritative report on the Inner London postal service found that complaints about the deterioration of the London letter service were fully justified, and added that there was no doubt that the deterioration had significantly impaired the efficiency of the business community in Inner London.
They also said that the service in certain districts has been particularly poor. We are far better than that. Yet the Opposition come here and ridicule those working diligently to give the people the service they expect.
That statement is totally incorrect.
All we get from the Opposition are continual complaints that the postal service is worse than ever. Those are the facts. Let them twist them whatever way they like, but they are on the record of this House.
That statement will also be on the record of the House.
Deputy Deasy and Deputy Tully referred to staff relations in the Department and to the postal strike last year. Deputy Deasy referred to recent newspaper headlines about poor morale in the Department which was attributed, he said, to low pay. For obvious reasons I do not want to comment on these remarks at present but I want to point out that everything possible is being done to improve the staff relations climate within the Department. The Minister and I have devoted a lot of our time to personal matters because the job in the Post Office is one of managing people and we shall continue to do so.
The negotiation structures have been overhauled in recent years in consultation with staff organisations. Those at present available provide means by which problems over pay and other matters can be resolved in a reasonable way without industrial strife. Unfortunately, to judge from recent reports in the media, there seems to be a disposition in certain quarters towards disruption of the public service as an alternative to the observance of freely negotiated agreements. Our great Taoiseach has called for a year of industrial peace.
When was that written?
So far as the Post Office are concerned, industrial peace and staff co-operation would enable us to make significant progress at last in a modernisation of the Department's service, and particularly in developing the telephone system. No matter what resources the Government make available, progress will not be achieved without the commitment and co-operation of all the Department's staff.
The public sector generally, including the Post Office, had bad press in the industrial relations area in recent years. There seems to be a body of opinion abroad that public enterprises are peopled with mindless militants and antediluvian management and that the public sector cannot deliver an efficient service to the public. I have made my point on this matter in an unequivocal way before the people of the nation here tonight.
I do not believe for a moment that this is the case. The Post Office are capable of doing a good job and since I became Minister I have not met anybody who contended otherwise. Impressions and intentions are fine in themselves but they are no substitute for actual performance. This year we had an opportunity to give a lie to the doubters who say we cannot do the job. Let me repeat, the Government have provided the resources and it is up to management and staff working in harmony to use them.
Last evening Deputy Deasy referred to the impersonal nature of the response, it was claimed, often received when complaints were made about the telephone service. It is important for the House and the users of the telephone service to understand clearly that difficulties are encountered which are not the fault of the operator. Every effort is being made to improve not only the technical facilities available to the operators, but also the working conditions of the operators.
I visited a number of exchanges around the country. I saw the remnants of the embargo imposed by the Coalition when they were in office. Operators were frustrated because they could not give a better telephone service. I wish I could tell every operator tomorrow to move into new quarters, with new technological equipment and a better environment in which to work. That will not be done tomorrow, but I can assure them it will be done before we leave office, before the next general election, because this Government have committed themselves to an investment of £650 million in a better telephone service. We will give the operators proper working conditions so that they will be able to provide a better service, and we make no apology to any man, woman or child for so doing. I say that to Deputy Deasy, Fine Gael spokesman, and Deputy Tully, who seems to have taken over the role on the Labour side——
Merely a temporary arrangement.
If I may deviate from the facts for a moment. For the past two years I have been watching the Fine Gael Party at work, especially at Question Time. The frustrations of the youth of Fine Gael were expressed by that lovely little lady at the youth organisation meeting in Dublin when she referred to the Front bench and many members of the back benches——
What has she to do with the telephones?
——as a bunch of shrinking violets. How apt.
Did the Minister read that in the Kilkenny People?
One wonders whether the Leader of the party on some occasions is allowed to stand up and make a case, or whether Deputy Kelly, Deputy Deasy or Deputy Enright——
Would the Minister get back to telephones?
(Interruptions.)
I am making this point because it is relevant to the Opposition——
Shrinking violets have nothing to do with telephones.
The Government decided to invest £650 million in the telephone services. I question the audacity of that team to take us to task when one looks at their performance when in Government and listens to their performance here, not alone tonight but last night as well. It is important for me to let the people know that all we have got from them is confused criticism from a bunch of shrinking violets or weeping lillies.
There are no shrinking violets in the House. There are either Deputies or Ministers.
I can get the paper and put it in the Library and give the date and I know why this criticism hurts the Opposition so deeply.
A question was raised last night about the National Prices Commission and Deputy Deasy complained that the proposed increases had not been submitted to them in what he claimed was the normal way. It is not correct to say or to imply that it is customary to consult the National Prices Commission in regard to increases in Post Office charges. The Prices Acts do not apply to Post Office charges and the only occasion on which the commission were consulted was in October 1975 when they were given an opportunity of expressing their views on proposed increases from 1 January 1976. Deputy Tully should be aware of that. The commission explained that it was not possible in the limited time available to examine the proposals. They suggested, with an eye to future increases, that a consultancy study should be carried out.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs invited the commission to have a consultancy study made, the report of which was published by the NPC as Occasional Paper No. 21 in December 1976. The main conclusions of the consultants were that larger and more frequent increases in charges were necessary if deficits were to be avoided on Post Office services and that future increases should aim at a gradual return to a position where losses would be eliminated. The present increases will not bring about a surplus in the Post Office services. There is no good reason why the commission should have been consulted about them. Moreover, it is a matter for the Government to decide how much, if any, of the cost of the service should be borne by taxation and it would appear to me to be wrong in principle to ask the NPC for advice on such a question.
I wish to refer to an allegation made at the beginning of this debate. I am not sure how much time I have left to speak.
The Minister of State has three minutes.
Will I not get some extra time?
Injury time.
There is no injury time in this game.
There are only two ways in which we can pay for the postal service, one is by taxation and the other is by applying increases to cover operational costs. We have opted for the latter because we made a commitment to the taxpayers on whose backs the Opposition have ridden at every opportunity. We have taken this option because we do not want to give services to bankers, insurance brokers and the wealthy. They must pay for the services they use, not the taxpayers. I want to make that point crystal clear.
This attack was made by the Fine Gael Party. Deputy Tully was obviously sent in by his party leader to pass the time. The Labour Party certainly did not show up in strength. It was Fine Gael who had the audacity to put down this motion and say we should not put up prices. I would ask Deputy Enright to say clearly how he would propose to deal with the excessive deficits we have had in the Department. I do not want any presumptuous statements by him or Deputy Deasy. I see a Deputy from Kerry and I can anticipate what will be said because I can see the shade of the paper in front of him. I do not want to hear that the Kerry people do not want to pay for their telephone services. This Department will not tolerate people who have a telephone service not paying for it.
We have had a most entertaining display from the Galway Deputy.
Which side of Galway?
There is a serious motion before the House dealing with these increases in postal and telephone charges. The Cabinet Minister in charge of the Department has had very considerable experience in business prior to entering this House and I would hope he would have some influence over his Minister of State in regard to matters of this nature. I am certain that everybody in this House and throughout the country is aware of the difficulties being experienced at present in the business community and in industry. We are faced with the most severe credit squeeze we have ever experienced and also the highest ever interest rates.
Neither of these points has anything to do with the motion or the amendment before the House.
If you will bear with me.
I will not bear with the Deputy unless he is relevant to the motion.
Because of the difficulties being experienced by business and industry, there is a serious obligation on the Government to endeavour to curtail costs wherever possible. It is totally wrong to increase postal and telecommunication charges at this time and it will cause serious damage to many businesses and small industries. Companies at present are limiting the amount of money they can get on overdraft and for that reason the telephone service is essential for them if they are to maintain their business.
What about the taxpayer?
In the event of a company not being able to meet a telephone bill the service is disconnected. Similarly, a company that is not able to provide the money to purchase stamps cannot send letters. Such services are essential for the survival of all firms. Many companies who may have contemplated taking on additional staff cannot do so now because they must tighten their belts. After the budget was introduced I warned the Minister how unwise it would be to implement the increases outlined. I did not say there would be closures but I warned the Minister that the increasing of costs in the postal and telecommunications services could lead to job losses.
What percentage of the overheads would that amount to?
The Minister at the Fianna Fáil youth conference in Limerick pointed to the difficulties being experienced by many firms. Every item of increased cost at present is dangerous and damaging for many firms. Never before were so many native Irish industries going through such a period of enormous difficulties and unprecedented pressures from all sides. Many of those firms are not making a profit, they are barely breaking even, and a good number of them are suffering losses. Why did the Minister decide on an increase of 25 per cent in postal charges and an increase of 20 per cent in telecommunications charges? The cost of posting a letter will be going up by 3p and one must take into consideration the additional weekly cost that will mean in industries. The same applies to the increase in the cost of telephone calls. One can appreciate the difficulties small concerns will experience after July.
It only amounts to half the increase imposed by the National Coalition.
In recent months closures have taken place, job losses and redundancies occured. The Government are limited in what they can do to help such firms but in this instance they should be endeavouring to avoid increases. They are hitting native Irish firms.
Who will pay for this?
Somebody will have to pay for the job losses. It is the taxpayer who will have to pay for them and for the redundancies.
A telephone will not put them out of business.
If it did the firm might as well throw their hats at it anyway.
That is the view of those opposite but I had expected that there would have been more sympathetic ears on the Government side.
How would the Deputy deal with this matter?
The increases will apply right across the board.
What about the increase in the industries?
Is the Deputy referring to unemployment figures?
I am referring to new industries.
New industries and unemployment figures do not have anything to do with this debate.
Industries, farmers and private individuals who need these services will be affected by the increases. The Government Information Services in a statement issued for publication on 17 May announcing the 25 per cent increase in postal charges and the 20 per cent increase in telecommunications charges put forward a number of interesting points. The Minister of State dealt with some figures earlier but the GIS statement was to the effect that in 1973-74 there was a deficit of £6.5 million which increased to £16.6 million in 1975. That figure was reduced to £8 million in 1976 and, according to the GIS statement, the main reason for the deterioration in the postal services financial position from a small surplus in 1977 to an estimated deficit of £14 million in 1980 was pay increases.
The Deputy is wrong again.
In August 1979 there were increases in the charges of 20 per cent. The cost of a stamp was increased by 2p and in July it will be increased from 12p to 15p, an increase of approximately 50 per cent in that short space of time. The Department did not pay their staff an increase in wages amounting to 50 per cent during that period.
The Deputy is very bad at arithmetic and does not understand how the system works.
It is interesting to consider those increases in charges and the fact that the Minister is endeavouring to get across the idea that those increases are for pay rises.
I did not say that. I said it was one of the factors and that 77 per cent of the increases in postal charges is represented by wages. What about petrol, oil, and everything else.
The Minister also told us that this was a heavy labour-intensive service. The increases in charges will not go towards paying more money to the staff in the Department.
I said a percentage would, not all.
It is misleading to say that the staff will get all of the money raised from these increases.
A large portion of it.
Wage increases are not to blame for these increases because they were less than the amount the Minister will collect from these charges. The National Prices Commission should be considered in relation to these charges, particularly in view of the fact that in August 1979 those charges were increased across the board by 20 per cent and that from July it is intended to raise them by 25 per cent. This is a matter of serious concern for everyone: in less than a year to have two increases one of 20 per cent in August and 25 per cent in July. If the Government are allowing increases of that magnitude it is time someone with a better sense of understanding was consulted in regard to them. The country is going through economic difficulty at present and a lot of firms are experiencing this difficulty.
For you to allow increases of that magnitude without having to refer to anyone must be called into question, Minister. There is no way you are in touch with reality.
I am. Cut the services in half—
Through the Chair, Deputy. You must not talk across the floor of the House.
There is no way a person who understands the difficulties of Irish business life at present could allow price increases of that magnitude. Whether the Minister is taking them out of the sky or working them out of a computer I do not know, but I do know that the people I meet day in and day out are seriously worried by the increases. Perhaps I am wasting my breath and might as well be idle in trying to get you to understand the seriousness of the situation. I hope even at this eleventh hour you will see the light.
The Minister would see the light, Deputy.
Give us the alternative.
If the Minister allows increases of this nature to continue without reference to anyone he will make the situation worse. For this reason it is essential that these increases should be referred to the Prices Commission.
If the Minister allows increases of this nature to continue without reference to anyone he will make the situation worse. For this reason it is essential that these increases should be referred to the Prices Commission for approval. The Minister should ask them to examine the position. After they have examined it and made a recommendation the Minister should come before the House and we could review it. To proceed in the manner in which the Minister and Government are the sole judges of the magnitude of their increases is wrong.
The Prices Commission are a widely constituted body and have looked into the workings of the Department before. Even though the Act does not apply to the Post Office in this instance, to try and bring about a semblance of reality to the situation the matter should go before the Commission for consideration and recommendation. This matter will have serious and widespread repercussions and I am concerned about it. You stated in regard to the postal service that there has been no growth in traffic. If you continue with price increases that situation will continue and if prices continue to rise you will face a situation where there will be a danger of a drop in traffic in the postal service. It is important to have a postal service that is on a par with the very best in Europe and one that is expanding. Continued price increases could prove very dangerous in the long run.
The Minister should try to consider this matter seriously and investigate it thoroughly because I am very worried about it at present. I hope we will see a growth in traffic and, Minister, are you not worried that there is no growth? I put it to you——
When the Deputy says "you" it is the Chair he means. He will have to talk in the third person. I am not responsible for this. I told you this before.
Is Deputy Enright suggesting that the National Prices Commission——
Deputy Enright is in possession.
Should the balance be paid by the taxpayer?
Deputy Enright, please, through the Chair.
It is a very important question.
The position is that there has been no growth in traffic in the postal service according to the Government Information Service statement on 17 May 1980.
Does the Deputy want services cut and the staff let go?
The Minister should not interrupt.
It is very important.
It may be but the Minister cannot come in at this stage. He has already been in.
I hope there will be an expansion in postal traffic and that the postal service will grow. There is no reason why it should not. We have an expanding population and it is logical to assume that there will be an expanding postal service. I hope the Government are considering why there has been no growth. They should be endeavouring to ensure that there is growth. However, if they continue with increases and charges of this magnitude there will not be growth. They are placing the postal service in an inviduous situation and one that is bound to cause concern. The Government should be considering these things at present. They are of enormous importance and will have effects on our economic development and growth in the future.
The reason for putting down the motion is that it is important that somebody calls attention to increases of this nature and that, if they are allowed to continue unabated and someone does not shout stop, the Minister and his Department may feel they can continue on as they have been doing since last August.
I would hope that the matter of increases granted in regard to subscribers using coin boxes would be looked into. The Minister has said that it would be impossible to alter the telephone system as it pertains to coin boxes. I cannot understand why it should not be possible to use a 5p. piece and a 2p. piece——
The vandals stopped all that.
It is not an automatic operator; it will take one coin only without an operator, for local calls.
These boxes have always been capable of taking a number of coins.
For a local call, but for a trunk call one has the operator to help release it; it releases only one.
Will a local call not cost 10p. from July onwards?
Yes, one coin only. I am talking about the present mechanism.
Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on this on Friday. On 3 July 1979 the former Minister, Deputy Faulkner, then in charge of Posts and Telegraphs said, when dealing with the capital sums required, that the Government recognised that this called for an accelerated level of expenditure. Part of the functions of the new telecommunications body, he said, would be to develop appropriate financing arrangements for the accelerated programme but in the meantime the Exchequer would make available the sums required, estimated at up to £100 million for 1980.
What is the position in regard to the expenditure of £650 million to which the present Minister refers? What proportion of that will be met from capital costs? I appreciate that the Minister will not be in a position to reply to this debate this evening, but I would hope that on Friday he would elaborate on how he will break down this figure as between capital costs, interest costs and so on.
That is all capital.
I would hope the Minister would explain the position in detail on Friday.
The increases sought at this time are excessive, are far beyond the capacity of many small businesses, firms and industries to pay. They are beyond the capacity also of a number of people in regard to correspondence. It is totally wrong, the Government are wrong in introducing them and they must be opposed by everybody.
I believe this motion has served a very useful purpose. I thank the Chair for his indulgence in allowing us to stray from the exact content at times. A motion like this of outright condemnation of price increases often can turn out to be a dull affair with a purely negative approach, one side contending the whole matter is black and the other side white. This has not been the case. Despite the Minister of State's assertion that we have not offered any alternatives or any reasoned argument as to how these increases could be avoided, the contrary is the truth. This has been a constructive debate. Indeed, as a result, the Minister may well take the type of action which will bring about an improvement in the postal and telephone services. For too long people have been burying their heads in the sand in this matter. Let us face the fact that our telephone system is diabolical, that, despite all the promises of the past three years, it has worsened. Anybody can so ascertain by going out into the street and questioning the public, when they will discover that matters are worse now than they have been ever.
I want to correct a few mis-statements made in the course of replying to my introductory remarks last evening. I have been accused of making a false statement to the effect that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs made a profit in 1977. I did not make that statement. I said that the postal services showed a slight profit in 1977, and I was merely quoting from the Minister's statement of 16 May last. Secondly, there appears to be a contradiction between the figures presented by the Minister here last evening and those presented by the Taoiseach earlier in the day, in that the effect on the consumer price index would be an increase of .16 per cent according to the Minister while the Taoiseach told us here yesterday afternoon that the increase was actually .20 per cent.
One thing that did annoy me, justifiably, was the manner in which statements I made about the quality of the telephone and postal services were misconstrued as indicating that I was attacking the staff. Indeed phrases such as "ridiculing the staff" have been used by Deputy Killilea and the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, contended that I accused the staff of being discourteous. I never used such phrases. I said there is a highly impersonal relationship between the people who operate the telephone service and the public. I fail to see how anybody could dispute that fact. In my remarks last evening I outlined to the Minister how these matters could be rectified. I went to great pains to explain that the telephone service will have to deal directly with the public, and not in a secondhand manner by way of correspondence and telephone calls. What we need is a man-to-man or woman-to-woman confrontation, dealing directly with the public. I hope the Minister will take heed of my advice on that issue. A lot of the dissatisfaction felt by the public, indeed a lot of the frustration felt by the staff, particularly within the telephone section of the Department, is due to the impersonal nature of their contact with one another. The sooner that situation is rectified the better.
I will come back to the real issue of how to improve the service without increasing the charges. Tonight, Deputy Killilea said that it was when the National Coalition Government were in office that the problems were created. He said there was under-investment in the service during that period and that that had caused the problems we are facing today. He said that the other cause of the problems we are facing today was poor internal organisation.
It was the Coalition's embargo. It was fatal.
I have some figures in front of me which will contradict the statements made by the Minister of State. In 1971/72, the capital investment by the then Fianna Fáil Government in the telephone system was £11 million. In 1970/71, it was £9 million; in 1969/70 it was £7 million. During the term of the National Coalition that investment varied from £44 million to £48 million. These figures speak for themselves. The years of under-investment were the 16 years of continuous Fianna Fáil Government, from 1957 to 1973.
Hear, hear.
It did not matter whether people were looking for telephones or not during that period because they could not get them.
There were ministerial orders every week.
That kind of investment of £7 million per annum ten years ago meant that all that could be done was to keep the service ticking over, and ticking over very badly at that. There were not any new programmes for replacement of antiquated equipment. The first real attempt to replace obsolete equipment was made during the term of the National Coalition, with annual investments in the order of £44 million, £46 million, £48 million.
And Fianna Fáil gave £11 million at the maximum.
The result is that we have the lowest number of telephones per thousand of the population in Europe. I will give the statistics. Per thousand of the population, the Federal German Republic has 374; France 293; Italy 285; the Netherlands 422; Belgium 313; Luxembourg 522; the UK 415; Denmark 493; and we are down at the bottom of the league with 163. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of State would lay the blame for that on the four years of National Coalition Government when the investment was a multiple of the investment by previous Fianna Fáil Governments, and a major multiple in many cases.
These new increases have given rise to a situation in which many people will regard a telephone as a luxury. I particularly refer to people who might have qualified for the telephone rental subsidy scheme if they could afford the installation fee which has been increased from £60 to £100. I am disappointed that in his reply last night the Minister did not take up that matter.
If the Deputy had not interrupted me I would have. I promise to give a full reply on Friday.
I should like to see some concession for those people.
We are still dealing with Wednesday night. Deputy Deasy to complete his reply without interruptions. We will reach Friday eventually, le cúnamh Dé.
We have been accused by Deputy Killilea of speaking with two tongues. Our motion only re-echoes the sentiment expressed by private individuals and by the business world. I refer to an article in "Truth in the News", The Irish Press of Saturday, 17 May. It refers to a statement issued by the Dublin City Centre Business Association which called the increases “penal and staggering”. The statement said that the increases would force some firms to the wall. So please do not accuse us of being responsible for starting the condemnation of the increases.
We have been told that if we want to improve the services we must increase the charges. That has been said by a business organisation.
The Minister did not quote that last night when he had an opportunity.
I will quote it on Friday.
I said last night, but Deputy Killilea does not want to know about it, that the morale in the Post Office is at its lowest ever. That has been said by an outgoing president of the staff association.
I sat with him in Wexford last Saturday night, with pleasure.
Did the Minister get contaminated?
(Interruptions.)
The Post Office workers' morale is at its lowest.
Will Deputies come back to Leinster House for a little while, at least for another three minutes?
Is it any wonder I referred to Deputy Deasy as the shrinking violet?
Deputy Deasy without interruption. I do not see any shrinking violets in this House, or any other sort of violets.
In yesterday's newspapers we read of another threatened strike in the Post Office. In this evening's Evening Herald we have a report under the heading “Phones: Department is accused by union”. The report states:
The head of the Irish Post Office Engineering Union blamed a Government Department today for cutbacks in telephone connections.
At the opening session of the Irish Post Office Engineering Union in Sligo's Park Hotel, Mr. P.J. Tracey, Dún Laoghaire, chairman of the national executive, called on the Department responsible for the improvements of the telecommunications to provide sufficient equipment to meet the requirements of telephones throughout the country.
He said that because of the Department's failure to have equipment in sufficient quantities, the number of connections which could have been made were cut back.
Last night the Minister contradicted me and said that stores were fully manned and equipment fully available. According to that statement they are not available.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies please allow Deputy Deasy to conclude?
The service has not been improved, but to listen to Deputy Killilea one would think, indeed one would know that he has a very bad telephone connection because he has been roaring and bawling like somebody who could not get through.
If I speak loud enough the Deputy cannot speak, and if I do it consistently——
I am putting the amendment.
In 1973 you could not make a telephone call to Athlone—
You would have to ride through the night to get there instead.
(Interruptions.)
When the Chair is on his feet the Deputy should resume his seat.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputy L'Estrange go back to whichever meeting he was at, even if he did lose money at the meeting? I am putting the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.