I was about to say before we adjourned that, apart from my very strong objections to the fact that anybody who is nominated to a board, such as the board of one of these companies, must resign and the fact that Members of these Houses cannot be members of such boards, there is another point I must mention. Individuals who are elected to this or the other House or to the European Assembly must immediately stand seconded from his other employment and shall not be paid by, or be entitled to receive from the company, any remuneration or allowances. As it stands, that is not unreasonable except that it is extraordinary to expect an executive of a semi-State corporation who becomes a Member of this House to live on the salary we are paid. Admittedly many people are expected to live on this salary, but we do expect to entice people into this House and persuade people to take an active part in this House. The average public service salary is of the order of £10,000 or £11,000 a year. Yet if somebody in a semi-State corporation becomes a Member of this House, he stands seconded, loses that salary and gets paid £7,610. That is not the way to encourage people to take an active part in politics. Apart from the practicalities, the tone of that paragraph — and it is not unique to this legislation, it is in most legislation — instead of encouraging people in semi-State corporations to take part in politics, is more or less holding a warning over their heads saying they are not really to be approved of, that their role is elsewhere. The opposite should be the case. One major British private company, ICI, have taken a directly opposite view. Their view is that because of the expertise people in business and industry have to offer, their employees should be encouraged. For instance, in terms of seniority, service in the British Parliament would be recognised by this company as being a real service. Can the Minister tell us why this clause is here, for some other reason than that it is in every other piece of legislation? There must be somewhere in the records of some Government or in some obscure file an argument about this other than the argument that it was there before. Can somebody explain what conflict of interest is involved, or is envisaged, that makes this provision necessary?
Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, 1982: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
I support my colleague, Senator Killilea——
What about me?
I am not quite sure whether Senator Ryan is a colleague of mine, but he is in this House. I am glad to see this section has at least educated Senator Ryan to the disadvantages of becoming a Member of this House as against staying as a professor in Cork University, or wherever he is.
I wish I was a professor in Cork University.
You invited that interruption.
He has stated the loss in salary, but I am not going to go into that. When Senator Killilea made the case that we are eligible for boards I loved the way he looked around. He looked at the Government side and picked out Senator Dooge. He said he was material for a board. He spoke about himself and said he was material for a board. Then he looked around at this side of the House but he was not too sure if the rest of us were suited for boards. I can tell Senator Killilea that we may not have material for this particular board, but there are other boards for which we are suitable. It is on the principle of not allowing a Senator or TD to be a member of these boards that I absolutely and totally support Senator Killilea.
I also do it at a time when we, the elected people, whether we be county councillors, corporation members, TDs, Senators or other elected persons, have come in for more criticism than ever before. When criticising us, people are criticising the institutions of this State. We should not knock ourselves and say we are not the material for boards. Regardless of what other people might say about the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, I have a high regard for him. In about six months' time when the other business has cooled down he might bring a glimmer of light into a Bill that he might bring into this House.
Since I came in here in 1977 I have seen this clause written into many Bills. I think it is wrong. We are knocking ourselves. If we decide to have a vote on this this evening I will challenge Fine Gael and Labour: are they going to get into a queue and vote against themselves as elected persons and say they are not the material for any board?
I support the remarks of Senator Killilea, Senator Honan and Senator B. Ryan. What really annoys me is that when you declare yourself a candidate for the Seanad elections, straight away you are unable to remain as a member of those boards. Whether you are defeated or victorious, you are no longer a member of that board. Most of us know that once you surrender membership of those boards, and those powerful bodies, it is very difficult to get back. If there is a vote on this, I will support my colleagues on this side of the House.
I was very interested to hear the Senators' views on this section. It has become an established convention almost, and it is included now as a matter of course in legislation, that Deputies, Senators, Members of the European Parliament and even candidates for those offices, should be excluded from directorships of semi-State bodies. There is much food for thought in what Senators have said, but again it is a question which perhaps needs general review. I will certainly note the comments of Senators and will bring them to the attention of the Government. I do not think we could exempt in this Bill what has been established policy for many years, but in view of what Senators have said, the policy needs looking at. It may be that some relaxation of the rule could be contemplated. I was very interested to hear Senator McGuinness's experience of being excluded from the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. That one example highlights the sort of anomalies this gives rise to. Certainly I will ask the Government in view of Senators' comments, to look at this general policy again.
There are other bodies, not only semi-State companies which debar them. I also want to correct a little point in case Senator Honan took a wrong meaning from what I said. I glanced around the Chamber and saw so many people that if I had mentioned every one I thought suitable to sit on boards, we would have been here all night. I want Senator Honan to accept my apologies because I did not intend to offend her.
I feel very strongly about this. It is time we, as politicians, took a stand on it. I am dismayed that the Government have not taken to their heels on this issue. The sort of liberal strains expressed in the national media and other places would seem to extend to this House and to the other House. The manipulation of the press personifies that and I am horrified that the Labour Party have not made a contribution on this because on matters of less relevance they make a hullabaloo around this House. The first prerogative for an elected representative is self-respect. Consecutive Governments — maybe not deliberately and for reasons which may not have been apparent then but which are apparent today — have been transformed by the media to self-destruct. I appreciate what the Minister has said and we should strengthen his hand. Without being political or trying to bring down the Government, or to do anything foolish, we should let the Minister know that at least the Seanad, if not the other House, felt deeply about this matter. Because of that, we should have a vote on this.
Senator Honan motivated me to speak briefly. There is nothing wrong with criticising the institutions of the State. They are not perfect. We are not the Holy Roman Catholic Church, perfection for all time. We are made up of imperfect people and imperfect institutions. My own attitude to the institutions of the State are similar to that of a former Deputy who supported the last Government of which the Minister was a member. My support is qualified, critical and liable to be withdrawn at any time, and that is my attitude to institutions of the State.
Not only am I responding to an invitation from Senator Killilea to respond to his observations, but from a conviction I have held for many years. It is not right that Members of the Oireachtas should be excluded from participating as members of boards of various State or semi-State bodies. I recall an occasion — I think Senator Killilea was a Member of the other House at the time — when I expressed views very similar to those that have been expressed by the Opposition this evening. Senator McGuinness mentioned her experience in this area. I almost had a similar experience. I was an elected member of An Bord Bainne, one of the very few successful bodies dealing with agriculture over the years, and had I been successful in the first Dáil election for which I stood, I would automatically have had to surrender my seat on that board.
In view of the sentiments expressed here tonight, I suggest there is ideal material for all sides of the House to debate a motion on the participation of Members of the Oireachtas on boards of semi-State bodies. This could be discussed objectively and on its own merits. There is an element of gamesmanship — if Senator Killilea will excuse the term ——
Not really.
——in bringing it in on this particular issue. The reality of the situation is that Senator Killilea had ample opportunities over the years to implement the views he expressed here today. I agree that Members of the Oireachtas should not be excluded and I am prepared to argue that in an atmosphere where the whole issue could be discussed objectively. There may be an opportunity for the motion to be discussed here, which can be sponsored from both sides of the House.
My apologies for being late but I did not hear the bell over the noise in the restaurant. I want to make one point on the role of politicians on boards. At the moment politicians are held in low esteem and that is unfortunate. It is difficult to listen to a Member, who made a mockery of the Seanad by talking about Senators getting £750 a day, decrying others running down politicians. I, too, got a great deal of stick over that stupid comment, as did many other people here. We must have some standards. If we are to have double standards, saying Senators are over-paid, how could one justify making a Senator a member of a board if he is getting £750 a day as a Senator?
I want it to be noted that there is no member of the Labour Party present.
The Senator has made a valid point and I accept what he said. We should have a joint debate on this issue.
I will join that.
We could find a framework within which to discuss the role of the politician. That would be a better idea than calling a vote to support the Minister.
I am not repeating the remarks I have already made. I stand over them and will defend them anywhere. I also stand over the view that people should work in the House to which they are elected and their performance should be measured by the work they have done. Any other yardstick of one's work is secondary, it is not relevant to the public's idea of what the Houses of the Oireachtas are about. Therefore I make no apologies for what I said.
Whatever we as an institution may choose to do, we have no right to put into legislation something which suggests that we are inherently unfit for any area of responsibility. That is a separate issue. I have a commitment to make the Houses of the Oireachtas relevant to a lot of areas of society where they are entirely irrelevant, but that does not mean I am going to ignore them or that I am going to hamstring future generations with this sort of legislation. There is no contradiction between anything I have said in the past — which I stand over — and what I have said here. They are simply two aspects of the same issue.
Senator Ryan was speaking for himself. If that is true in his case, it definitely is not true in mine. In the 23rd Seanad I had the best attendance record of any Member of the Oireachtas. I do not want to be associated with his remarks about a Senator receiving £750 a day. A Senator's salary, as everybody knows, is only over £7,000. A Senator's constituency work is different from coming here and punching in a few hours, as Senator Ryan may well have done. Senator Ryan is not speaking for me, or the majority of my colleagues in this House.
I do not think we should allow this section to pass without paying a compliment to the interim chief executives who have done an excellent job in the preparation of the scheme whereby it will be possible for the two boards to be set up. I am also glad it is stated in section 39 (3) that the chief executive will be appointed by the board, and not by the Minister. When the Bill says that the chief executive will be appointed by the board, does this mean that the selection process will be competitive? Does it mean that the board will have a choice of people who might be able to take up the position? What is meant by "the board shall appoint the chief executive"?
I would like to be associated with Senator Lanigan's tribute to the two chief executives. They are very worthy people who, with great patience, have prepared very diligently for vesting day and will continue to do so.
The first two subsections of this section provide that the existing chief executives, by right, become chief executives of the statutory boards when they are set up. The third subsection gives the power to the board to appoint subsequent chief executives. The boards will have the independence to decide what sort of competition they should have and how they should go about appointing the chief executives. That is as it should be.
I too would like to be associated with the kind remarks passed by Senator Lanigan and the Minister for the wonderful work, patience and endurance of the two people in question, but I think the greater task still faces them. It is a most difficult, onerous task and one which is going to take an enormous amount of ability, strength and dedication. I wish them well in the future. With regard to their appointments. Senators can be assured everything was above board and the two appointees carried out their duties diligently, as the record will show. I wish them both well in the difficult future.
We are getting into the nitty gritty of the Bill. At this stage we must ask about the transfer of land. We asked earlier if a valuation is going to be put on these lands. I was not satisfied with the answer the Minister gave when he suggested that he was going to use an alternative use value as the valuation to be put on the land, and that this would be the criterion used by the Valuation Office in assessing the valuation. Not alone will there be lands owned by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs transferred, but leases which have been taken out by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will have to be assigned to the new telecommunications board and An Post. In relation to the letting of properties, what is the situation legally regarding the transfer of a lease from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Bord Telecom or An Post? It seems that in each case where you have an assignment of a lease, this lease will be assigned not alone by the two boards but the lessor would have something to say in the matter, because he will be assigning a new lease.
This section legislates for the transfer of all leases and ownerships from the Minister to the semi-State companies as if there had been no change. That is literally what it does and it gives legal effect to that.
A property company is not going to assign a lease just because this Bill says that Bord Telecom or An Post will take over the responsibility. If there is a change of responsibility from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, there has to be a re-assignment of the lease. In a business situation, the owner of the property will consider the two boards as the new tenants.
The purpose of the section is to legislate for the transfer of such leases and that is precisely what it does, and it meets precisely the point being raised by the Senator.
Where does it say in section 40 that the owners of the property are going to take into account the fact that new leases are going to be signed?
No new leases are affected by this section; it is the assignment of existing leases in the name of the Minister to the respective companies.
This is all right from the Minister's point of view. The owners of the buildings now tenanted by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are going to look on both new boards as new tenants. This section gives the Minister the right to assign the leases from the Department to the boards. In effect, the Minister is changing the leases of premises from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the two boards.
This section does not give the Minister the power to assign. It is legislating for the assignment. It says:
"All land vested in the Minister immediately before the vesting day and used partly in connection with functions assigned to one company and partly in connection with the functions assigned to the other company and all rights, powers and privileges relating to or connected with such land shall, ...without any conveyance or assignment, stand vested on the vesting day in the postal company...".
It is legislating for that very purpose.
I am sorry to continue with this point. It is easy to assign lands which are owned by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the new boards, but throughout the country there are numerous buildings leased by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and there is no way the lessee can assign leases to new boards unless with the consent of the leasing landlords——
It is precisely what the legislation does. It assigns the rights, powers and privileges of the Minister to each of those companies. That is precisely the intention of the section.
The intention is one thing, but let us be fair, landlords at this stage have assigned leases to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is only with the landlord's permission that a lease can be assigned to anybody else.
I am sorry to repeat myself but precisely the effect of the section is to assign, among other things, the rights, powers and privileges of the Minister in relation to any property or land to the respective companies.
What the Minister is suggesting is that the rights of private property and of landlords are gone out the door. It is suggested that, because we are putting the Bill through here, the rights of private property are overruled and the landlords are not going to be able to negotiate on the reassignment of leases.
The landlord's position is not affected at all. The only thing this does is transfer any existing leases from the Minister to the respective company, as if the Minister were still the lessor.
I must keep harping on the point that there are two separate entities, the landlord and the lessor. In any commercial land transaction nobody, except with the permission of the landlord, can assign a lease to anybody.
That is precisely the power we are taking here by enacting this and subsequent sections. We are saying that whatever leases the Minister has, among other things, we are assigning to the respective companies without, as it says, vesting our assignment. We are saying that whatever is in the Minister's name is now going to be in the company's name.
This Bill overrules the right of a landlord to the natural property rights that he had in the past. The Minister is now suggesting that by this Bill the right that a company have to lease property under an agreement is overruled by this Bill.
No.
I do not want to become involved in this, but we could be here all night because we are on two different wavelengths. Senator Lanigan seems to be dealing with it as if somebody were going to lease something. The Minister is explaining that he is transferring, more or less, the lease he already has and making it legal. One of them will have to agree on something soon because there are two different points and it will go on all night.
The final point on this. The landlord's rights are in no way affected. Whatever rights he has vis-á-vis the Minister at the moment, he will have vis-á-vis the company. It is just that the name of the lessee will have changed. The section gives that power.
Irrespective of what Senator Browne says—and we can be here all night—this Bill effectively takes away the right of a landlord to lease. He makes an arrangement with a company and what we are doing here is taking away from him the rights of his own property. The Minister in this Bill is setting up two separate companies, which is totally different from the situation in the past. In doing so, he is telling the landlord that he has no rights in this and the Minister is just transferring the contract that he made with him to two separate companies.
I am sorry to intervene in this, but I am inclined to feel, like Senator Browne, that if we do not do something sensible this will go on all night. I do not like to disagree with Senator Lanigan. However, what he is suggesting, in practice, is that because we are transferring the business of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to these two companies, many private landlords should be allowed to make a bonanza out of the transfer of the leases. That is what he is suggesting and there is no use in him shaking his head. He is saying that because the Minister is simply allowing the leases to be changed into another name without the necessity for a conveyance or an assignment officially, we are taking away the rights of private property of the landlords. If we are doing so, all I can say is let us go on doing so, I see no reason whatsoever why those persons who have negotiated leases with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs — leases which no doubt are for a particular rent and for a particular term and which set out particular covenants and agreements — should suddenly be allowed to change their agreements simply because the Legislature sets up these companies and these companies need to become the people who are leasing those properties. I find it very difficult to believe, in spite of recent judgments on the subject of rent control and so on, that the courts would uphold the idea that we must protect the rights of landlords to such an extent that they should be allowed to take advantage of a situation like this by suddenly raising the rent or whatever it is, just because we are setting up these companies.
I do not intend to take up all night, but I have a very strong viewpoint on it. I did not suggest that there was going to be any raising of rents or any advantage taken by the landlords. We are taking away the landlord's rights to his own property. If a landlord, with whatever size of property — and I have no interest in any property that the ESB or the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have taken — makes an agreement with me as a tenant, I do not expect that, that tenancy will be assigned to somebody else. No more do I see that why in this Bill the rights of the landlord who may have entered into an agreement with a customer, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, should be overruled by this section if he does not want to continue with the tenancy as agreed under the present arrangement.
Could I say finally that this could work two ways? There may very well be landlords who would lose if we did not have this enactment. Suppose the postal company and Bord Telecom decided that they did not want these leases that were not paying them, the landlord could lose. The effect of this section is merely to transfer. It does not add to the rights of landlords, or take away from them. What it does is save a lot of time and many legal fees in going through each transaction one after another. That is all it does.
Would the Minister tell me exactly what is the meaning of "choses-in-action"? I have not much technical knowledge.
A chose-in-action is a right to take legal action to collect a debt due or to obtain damages for injury done to one's property. This is in line with other provisions in the Bill dealing with the transfer to the company of claims by or against the Minister, such as sections 42 and 47. It is a standard feature of legislation transferring property to new bodies to refer specifically to chose-in-action as an item of personal property being transferred to them. For example, this occurs in section 36 of the Health Act, 1970, and section 35 of the Gas Act, 1976.
I am not sure whether this arises on section 42 but I will put it briefly to the Minister and perhaps he can tell me if it belongs to another section. On the rights and liabilities with regard to the civil servants at present working in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, there is concern, I gather, among some employees of the Department concerning their rights under the Social Welfare Act. Because they were civil servants up to now, their rights under the Social Welfare Act are somewhat curtailed and it will take them some time to build up the ordinary entitlement of private employees to such things as unemployment benefit and various other benefits that are concerned. In the present situation if by any chance one of them became redundant — and there is provision made for their getting a redundancy payment — and then went to collect unemployment assistance which is means-tested, or any other benefit which is means-tested, the lump sum which they would receive for redundancy possibly would be counted as means in the assessment of their eligibility for this means-tested benefit. I suggest that the Minister look at this situation to see if some kind of undertaking can be given that they be allowed to be in full benefit, as it were, up to the time that they have built up the normal entitlement.
We are not dealing now with the question the Senator raises. This section really deals with property rights and liabilities and so on.
What section would it arise on?
It does not arise under any section. It is a matter for negotiation between the trade unions and the new company.
Could the Minister at least give me an undertaking that this matter will be dealt with, so that there will not be a time when they are not properly in benefit?
It will be dealt with. It is one of the items the trade unions will want to discuss as part of the transition.
A point comes to mind on subsection (2). Take the point, in An Post, of the sub-post office people who are on contract to the Department. I foresee a problem, on which the Minister should give a commitment, in the area of the smaller post offices which may not, in the view of the board, be viable any more. Viability these days seems to be the key issue. Those post offices by the decision of the board are going to be closed down. Would the Minister envisage some protection in the contract signed with the sub-post office holders at the moment that this would not happen to them? The contract is binding and in the transfer of the contract which we discussed a few moments ago, this would come under that heading, just as much as rents would. I firmly believe that the Minister should and must give a commitment today to this House so that a guideline will be set for the board and the smaller post offices will be safe from the hands of the so-called viability-status-minded people. These offices have a role to play and should not be closed down as we did with many of the railway stations in times gone by. For example, if the Clifden to Galway railway were running today, it would be our most viable carriageway, but it is not. We have roads built on top of it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
And the West Clare railway.
It is not very hot competition.
It is not, but the point I am making is that it is the same in sub-post offices. There are many relevant matters, such as the small saver, for example, who would like the personal verification of the local sub-post master if he wants to invest money in the Post Office. There is the delivery of telegrams, at times personal, private and confidential and often times very urgent, which must be made in the middle of the night or at other inconvenient times of the day. There are many relevant matters which apply to a sub-post office that viability would not come into. As a service to the community, they are most viable and most necessary.
The Minister should here today state categorically that sub-post offices as they now stand shall remain. It is up to the board to make them viable. It is not up to themselves because they are prevented from becoming viable by the manner in which the Post Office runs them at the moment. Rather than close them now, I suggest that we would look at them from another direction — instead of this viability clause being applied against them, that it be applied for them. I suggest that the Minister should now make a commitment that many of those people who have given a tremendous personal service over the years will not now be in any danger from the clause of the contract and that this contract will transfer, as stated here on a previous section of the Bill when we were talking about the landlord's right. Those poor, misfortunate people who may not have a very viable post office should be protected, just as much as the landlord.
We have already dealt with the matter that Senator Killilea raises. Subsection (3) of section 16 says that "The articles of association of the postal company shall provide that the company shall, in consultation and agreement with recognised unions and associations, set up a machinery for the purposes of negotiations concerning the remuneration and other contractual conditions of postmasters". Section 42 transfers existing contractual obligations of the Minister to the new companies. There is a section in the Bill later on, which was inserted at the suggestion of the Opposition in the Dáil dealing with the closure of sub-post offices because of changes in circumstances. At the request of the Opposition, I will be deleting that section because it has been read the wrong way, as we thought it might be. We will be coming to that later.
Section 44 states that "Each company may, in accordance with the Second Schedule acquire compulsorily, any land..." It goes on: "No person shall be entitled to acquire compulsorily, except with the consent of the Minister, any land or any easement or other right in respect of land vested in either company". Then it goes on in subsection (4) "The telecommunications company shall not be entitled to exercise any rights under the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1916, in relation to the execution of works affecting any land, easement..." and so on. Does this mean that if a local authority want to acquire compulsory land which is within the present ambit of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs they cannot do so?
Yes. That is the standard situation. When there are different public authorities involved, one cannot compulsorily acquire the property of the other without the consent of the relevant Minister. We are just expressing what is the current situation everywhere else in this Bill.
If there is land to be compulsorily acquired by a particular local authority and it is impinging on the ambit of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or the board at the time, is there any need for the company to place an advertisement in the papers which says that they are taking over local authority land for the use of the particular board?
Yes. There is a set procedure. They would have to publicise it.
In the event, then, is there a right of appeal by the public against compulsory acquisition by a company?
There is, yes. It is all dealt with in the Second Schedule, to which we will be coming later.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and should be discussed together.
This is a very important section of the Bill. It deals with the security of tenure of the employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who will be transferred on vesting day to the two companies. Firstly, I have paid more attention by far to this than to any other section. I have had very long discussions with many people on this — trade unions in particular — a number of Members of both Houses, especially Deputy O'Sullivan, but also Members of the Opposition and Members of my own and the Labour Party. It is fair to say that there is broad agreement on both sides of both Houses that we should give the same security of tenure as at present exists and express that as clearly as possible.
On the other hand the original request of some of the trade unions was effectively to retain civil service status, but that is simply incompatible with the central purpose of the Bill which is to transfer these two businesses out of the civil service environment and into a commercial environment. Nonetheless, we felt that we could represent the same security of tenure in the section, so on Committee Stage in the Dáil I tabled an amendment which was a great improvement on the original section. Following long discussion on it in the Dáil, I tabled further improving amendments on Report Stage and I indicated just before Report Stage was taken that I had been approached yet again on this section with further suggestions which I undertook to consider. As a result of that consideration, I am proposing these two amendments.
Amendment No. 3 states:
"; any alteration in the conditions in regard to tenure of office of any such member shall not be less favourable to him than the prevailing conditions in the civil service at the time of such alteration, save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned."
The new section, if these two amendments are passed, will have quite a bit of repetition but I do not mind underlining and repeating three or four times, as we do in the proposed new section, the guarantees that my predecessor and I have given that the same security of tenure as they have today will accompany those who leave the civil service and join the semi-State companies on vesting day. I believe that the section as amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil adequately did that, but because of the worries and fears on Report Stage I brought in further improvements, or further repetition to underline that guarantee and I do so again.
Anybody reading the entire section 45 cannot but be made aware of the intentions of Parliament in relation to security of tenure. The guarantee is repeated, underlined and magnified, so that it is clear beyond any possible doubt. I want to reiterate once again in this House and communicate through this House to all the employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that their security of tenure is well and truly copperfastened. Indeed, I have been greatly encouraged by the response I have had from so many people and so many associations in the Department who have welcomed very much what we have tried to do in this section.
The most important section in all this Bill is truly this particular one, because this is where the attempt is made, a very difficult attempt, to transfer people, human beings. This is the part where the great personal problems of security of tenure and security of work, which is just as important as everything else will be guaranteed to those people. On this issue the Minister has enlightened the House slightly by the addition of these two amendments and they are welcome. Those involved will welcome them, too, as a further explanation of what it is intended to do.
There are a few problems which we must thrash out and clarify, arising in the transfer. Firstly, in the very weakest section in the Department there are quite a number of temporary labourers who are not yet appointed to civil service status. They are the weakest section, one would suspect, of the entire work force of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Some are at present being interviewed to become officially appointed, but many have not been called yet. I would like the Minister to clarify to all and sundry that those who have spent some time now in employment and possibly some included in the alleged misdemeanours of recent times in the Minister's own constituency, will be given an assurance of employment also. There are many more who are honourably employed — I am not saying that these are dishonourably employed — who have spent many years in the civil service and who have not yet been appointed. They are the first people to whom we must turn our attention. A guarantee must be given in this House by the Minister, either to the House or as a matter of instruction to Bord Telecom that their place of work is secure for them.
Secondly, in paragraphs (a) and (b) what happens to the section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs — a maligned section and one which has been maligned for many years — the telephonists? The telephonists really belong to the section of the Department known as the Post Office. They were always employed on that side, even though they were operating on the other side of the Department, the telecom side. I would be afraid that they would fall between the two stools. We know for a fact that the Institute of Science and Technology said in their report of autumn 1981 that 3,000 surplus telephonists would be employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs by 1985. I do not think we will have to reach 1985 to have that surplus. I would like to know which board these people will be going to. I would like to know if in the event of their jobs disappearing through new technology, is any training programme ready for them so that they may work in some other section of the present Department. In 1981 I suggested that a training programme should begin immediately because we realised from day one that the surplus was going to be there. On the completion of the retraining course there should be good employment for them.
Generally speaking, it should be clearly known that our telephonists, under very difficult circumstances, have given good service over the years. This is despite the frustrations that we all may have sometimes when we ring 10 and get no answer. Do not believe that it is because the telephonists are sitting down doing nothing. It is not. It is because of lack of staff, bad switchboards and a whole series of things. There is a whole series of technical reasons why there might not be an answer. We should remember that.
It is important from the point of view of the telephonists that the Minister should now clearly state what their position will be. We are coming to the end of assurances, as one would put it, and very few opportunities are left to the Minister to make such a statement. I would appreciate it if the Minister would clarify the situation regarding the surplus telephonists. What does he propose to do with them; to which board is it proposed they be allocated, what will be their security of employment in some other field within the Department, or within a board and will a training course be made available? This is a matter which has been highlighted since 1978 and has been foremost in the minds of senior people and senior management in the Department. If they are not going to have security then we would like to hear what alternative proposals the Minister has or does he intend to pay them compensation? If he does intend to pay compensation will they be offered a choice? They should be offered a choice. The basis of the choice should be put down in black and white this evening. The opportunities for the Minister to do that are running out. I would appreciate it if it could be done later this evening.
This question arises not because of the new organisation but because of the automation programme, and there has been a great tendency to confuse the two things. If there was never this Bill before the House and if we were to continue on with the Department we would have to face up to the question of what happens to all the operators we have in manual exchanges as those exchanges become automatic exchanges. As the Senator is probably aware, there is already an agreement with the unions representing the telephone operators in relation to the security of their employment or alternatively voluntary redundancy terms. There are voluntary redundancy terms.
Telephone operators will be assigned to Bord Telecom. In the main they will work under the local postmaster, as they do at the moment, who will work for Bord Telecom in this instance on an agency basis. Telephone operators will have the same security of tenure as any other category of staff entering the employment of the new companies. They will be covered by the guarantee in section 45 (4) in the same way as anybody else and if it should be necessary to redeploy them in due course as the conversion programme proceeds they will, of course, have the protection of the other guarantees in regard to pay and conditions of service.
Telephone operators are undoubtedly facing a time of change but as I said that is not the result of the proposed reorganisation of the service under this Bill. It is the result of technological development. The same situation would arise where reorganisation would be carried out. The various provisions in the Bill give telephonists the same comprehensive protection in regard to security of tenure and pay and conditions as well as all other transferred staff. As I said before, there will be no compulsory redundancies. That is a guarantee that has been given and I am glad to repeat it now.
I was very glad to hear the Minister say that there will be no compulsory redundancies and to hear him going through the various ways in which he has attempted to deal with this major problem of security of tenure. This is of the greatest importance to the employees of the Department and in particular to people working in the telephone service. Perhaps one of the things that has made them feel particularly worried is precisely this element of technological change that the Minister has been referring to. It is quite clear to them as it is to everybody else that as telephone technology advances there will be less demand for manual telephone operation. In the past, my understanding is that when they brought up this matter and there were agreements made about security of tenure they did in fact offer to be retrained for other kinds of jobs there.
It is not that they are asking to stay on as manual telephone operators and saying, "If we are not going to be used, we will have to sit around and be paid for doing nothing". That is not their attitude and they are not so foolish as to think that that kind of thing could go on. They are quite willing to co-operate in redeployment and retraining but what worries them is that perhaps the attitude in the past was inclined to be, "No, you need not worry about this retraining and so on. Do not worry, we will keep you on even if you have nothing to do", and they cannot see how a company in the more commercial environment of the new companies could possibly justify keeping on people with nothing to do. Therefore they would welcome a reassurance that this kind of redeployment and retraining will be available to them rather than simply being made redundant. I am very pleased that the Minister has gone to great trouble to try to deal with this situation of security of tenure. I feel that he should in addition reassure them that the situation is that other jobs should be found for them if in fact the technological change he refers to means that their present jobs become non-existent.
This section puts constraints on the two new companies which, commercially, would not be acceptable to any other type of company. The constraints being placed on the two boards are that all the staff will be transferred without any loss of remuneration or without any loss of service. We have 30,000 people being transferred here and it still does not place normal commercial constraints on the new company. When the Minister says he is giving these civil servants security of tenure he is, equally, taking away from them their right to fight for jobs within their particular grades in the civil service. He is giving them security of tenure but he is withdrawing from them the right they have at present to go for other jobs within the civil service. What will be the position regarding the PAYE/PRSI situation where now they are under the lower PAYE/PRSI contributions system and equally are under the constraints that are on the public service as regards benefits? Are they going to go into the new companies carrying forward the benefits that would normally have accrued to them by virtue of the length of time that they would have spent in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?
To deal first with Senator McGuinness's point. She asked would we be guaranteeing alternative employment. That is what security of tenure means. If there is any disemployment of telephonists they will be offered alternative employment. In relation to the point raised by Senator Lanigan, the same situation will pertain in the two companies as pertained in the ESB and RTE, and some other companies, where there was a transfer from the civil service into semi-State situations. Where they will not be covered by the normal social insurance regime they will have their own particular regime similar to that in the civil service. For instance, they will have a much better regime in relation to sick pay and non-contributory pension and that will all continue. We are purely transferring out of the civil service into the semi-State company and transferring precisely the same benefits and conditions, etc. There is no change. This is already the position in the ESB and RTE and many other semi-State companies.
Without labouring the point, what the Minister is suggesting is that the benefits they will carry into these semi-State bodies will be the same as the benefits now being afforded to people in the other sectors, but the question that I asked originally was will they be able to compete for jobs within the civil service? This is a considerable right because if one is in a particular section of the civil service and one feels that one's talents could be better used in another section of the civil service it can happen now, but under the new regime it is not clear if this can happen.
That is a matter for negotiation between the unions, the staff associations and myself in the transitional period. What Senator Lanigan said is true, that opportunities for transferring to other Departments could be cut off but it is also equally true that promotions into the Post Office from other Departments will be cut off. It is a two-way process. It is possible that they might lose out. They are also going to lose in regard to competitions in other Departments. It will work both ways.
In all the Minister's answers he did not clarify the situation about the non-appointed numbers.
They are covered and I was doing my best to avoid any reference to alleged misdemeanour in relation to my own constituency. It gives me an opportunity to give the Senator the figures since I became Minister — 140 people have appeared on five lists all of whom will be employed, of whom 27, I understand, are from my own constituency, of whom 13 made representations to me, and for one other postal district which is not in my constituency, Dublin 5, something in excess of 50 people appear on those lists. So far from there being discrimination in favour of my constituency I think if that word got out in my constituency they would feel I had let them down.
Are they all eligible for appointment——
I would be glad to bring the Senator back over the record to see if there has been more equitable treatment in the past six months than, say, the last six years, and I think that he will find that there has been. I am glad to clarify that point because Senators have been making comments throughout the day about politicians bringing each other down. I think it is fair that public representatives should take criticism for misdemeanours or mistakes and I have had to take that recently, but it is terrible to have to take it for a mistake you have not made.
Nowadays one would not know whether to do it or not to do it.
One is wrong either way. In relation to non-established personnel, they will transfer to the different semi-State bodies with the same rights and security that they have now. There will be no change in that situation.
Under existing standards in the Department, after one year of successful job performance you are bound to give them full status and many of them have gone on two and three years. That matter should be cleared up. All those on that waiting list will have from now until January to clear up those matters. The lower grades in the Department are very important people too. They should be given total protection so that when they are being transferred they will have security of tenure too. If it passes away now, people who have served for the last three or four years, many of whom are still awaiting to be appointed, can easily be told their employment is not legal. Now is the time to do it.
I hope the Minister will give an assurance to the House that satisfaction will be rendered in this field and that all those who have given satisfactory employment for at least six months will find themselves ratified to full status. Also, is the option being offered to many people in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who have been seconded from other Departments over the years, and who have given loyal and dedicated service for many years, to go semi-State, but still remain technically in the name of another Department? Are they extended the right to transfer into the semi-State status if they so wish?
In relation to that last point, offhand I am not aware if anybody in the Department is seconded from another Department. I will certainly examine the point to see if there are any people in that category.
In relation to the non-established people in the Department, I certainly will look at the position if there is any delay. I will certainly undertake to catch up with any delays before vesting day. We could give that guarantee. It would be very wrong if vesting day came and there still were backlogs of a year or two, as Senators suggest. I can give the guarantee that that will be put right.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 29, subsection (2), line 2, after the word "Minister" to add "and nominated by Consumers Organisations".
The reason we suggest this addendum is that we have certain consumer organisations who are very interested in the operation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and we feel that it should not be left totally to the Minister to appoint the members of the council. If it is to be the Minister who appoints the members of the council, we should have representation from members of consumer groups who over the years have expressed on interest in this. What has been said by them on many occasions has been taken into account by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the operation of the Department.
While I understand and to a certain extent sympathise with the motivation underlying this amendment, I am afraid I am unable to accept it, essentially because it would be far too restrictive. Following the basic model of the existing Post Office Users' Council, I would be concerned to ensure that membership of new statutory councils will be as broadly based as possible and will have a reasonable geographical spread. Clearly, consumers' organisations would be an important category to be represented but I would also want to see the social partners and large users represented directly.
On the matter of detail, which is nonetheless important, a statutory provision on these lines would create unnecessary practical difficulties which could hamper the establishment and effective operation of a statutory councils, in that it is not clear what "consumers' organisations" should take part in the nomination process envisaged in the amendment or on what criteria one could decide how representative a particular organisation might be or what weighting should be given to different organisations to nominate members.
It is important to bear in mind that the basic function of each member of the Users' Councils' would be to work on behalf of all users of the postal and telecommunications services. Any Minister will be concerned to ensure that users of the service will be well served.
We do not intend pressing this to a division. The reason for the suggested change is that we feel the Seanad should take cognisance of the fact that we have organisations and individuals who over the past number of years have been involved in the debate on the running of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We had hoped that when the Minister was making his choice, he would take cognisance of the fact that the viewpoints of these people, whether they have been over-critical, critical, or selectively critical, should be taken into account.
While I see the necessity for broad basing Users' Councils at the same time we must accept that the present Users' Council, no matter how worthy their membership may be, have not really been seen by the public as serving a tremendously useful purpose, or being very effective. The public have probably seen themselves, in their justified or non-justified anger over some of the deficiencies of the telephone service, for instance, as being better represented by some of the consumer organisations that Senator Lanigan has referred to. While I understand the Minister's point, that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to suggest that all members of Users' Councils should be nominated by consumer councils, I would ask the Minister that such members as are coming from consumer groups should be actually nominated by the consumer groups themselves, rather than simply appointed by the Minister. While I am not saying that the present Minister necessarily would do so, this is something that will go on and on and whatever Minister happened to be in power could simply choose people from a consumer organisation who were not particularly vocal or particularly effective, to suit the purposes of the company, as it were. I would be anxious, therefore to see the consumer councils having some voice in the actual appointment of members who represent them.
I will note the points made by both Senators. Personally I would be very keen to have quite active Users' Councils. It will be my intention to appoint people in the main who are representative of consumers interests and active in consumers interests. That would be my intention.
If one looks back over the history of consumer councils and if one really looks at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, one will realise that the people who have done more to point out the problems are the elected Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Yet the people who have fought the case many times, with frustration and difficulty, find themselves debarred from these councils under subsections (5) and (6). This is where the Minister should consider the views of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. They have a case for being members of these councils, but instead we find the Ministers debarring us from even the possibility of being selected by him for membership.
I will say clearly and unequivocally that nobody knows more about the problems of the people in regard to telephones and the Post Office than public representatives. Here we are today, changing over to the board, taking away powers from the public representative because the Minister is handing over those powers. We are debarring ourselves from being selected, or being at the disposal of the Minister to select us to make the case of the public representative. We are entitled to be eligible for these councils. Honestly, Minister, you have taken the whole thing too far. You have taken it completely and totally out of the hands of the public representatives who every day are mingling with the public; who understand the needs of the public; who are everyday listening to the frustrations of the public, and you are debarring them from offering themselves for selection to these important councils. If the last Users' Council lacked bite it was because the work of the Users Council was done by public representatives.
As a past junior Minister in that Department I know it because my hand used to be sore from signing letters in answer to representations made by public representatives. I must say there were very few to the Users' Council. I oppose subsections (5) and (6). I ask the Minister to withdraw them so that all sections of the community will get fair play including the public representatives.
Could the Senator imagine the situation if I started appointing members of my own party to the Users' Council?
The Minister could appoint members of this party.
I would be subjected to a certain amount of criticism.
What harm?
It would be seen as the Minister trying to protect himself and putting in his own men so that he will not be criticised.
The Minister would be far safer with us.
The public would feel that we were not putting in independent people. I do not think I can accept the suggestion.
The public will be more frustrated when they go to the clinics every representative holds and say: "Dear Minister, or dear Deputy or dear Senator, would you be able, please, to ensure that my telephone will be installed next week? I paid the money four months ago and it has not been put in yet". The public representative comes up to Dublin and he writes a note to Bord Telecom Éireann. If Bord Telecom Éireann are doing their job in accordance with what is laid down in the Bill they will write back and say that that is none of your business, Mr. Public Representative. That is now the business of Bord Telecom Éireann. I am sure they will not be so discourteous, but if they wished they could be.
Public representatives now find themselves with no forum in which to have constructive dialogue on such matters as the abuses or the errors that can sometimes be made in those organisations. We are responsible for the financial affairs of the boards but if we make representations on behalf of constituents on a matter other than a financial one we will very quickly and abruptly receive back an answer telling us in nice, polite language that it is none of our business. However, it is our business when they need money. They will run over here and bring the Minister in. We will all have to put up our hands and agree.
It is time for a re-think. It is no excuse to say "What would the public think?" What will the public think when they get a reply back saying: "It is none of your business". To whom are they to go? Who will tell them the address, and telephone number of each member of the Users' Council? There will only be 20 of them. If three or four places were reserved for public representatives other public representatives could drop them a note asking them to look after such and such a person because he was in a bad state. The section should be changed so as to reserve at least five places on the Users' Council for public representatives. In that way matters relevant to their constituencies could be looked after. The point is that they are responsible to the people. Contrary to what the Minister says, there must be a place for public representation and public representatives to make their case. I do not see any place other than the Users' Council.
I agree with what has been said by Senator Killilea. There is one element in this section I disagree with totally. It gives the Minister the right to establish the council in the first place and it then gives him the right to appoint the numbers — a minimum of ten and a maximum of 20 — and then it continues the situation whereby Members of the Oireachtas or people who are standing for Oireachtas membership cannot sit. It gets down to the nitty-gritty in subsection (7) where it says that a council member may resign and on the date the Minister receives the resignation he shall no longer be deemed a member of the board.
In subsection (8) it says a Minister may remove a member of a council from office. The whole rationale of a users' council is to give to the user the right to have a say in the running of the Department and have an input into it. I would have thought that if we are giving that right to a users' council there should be no ministerial responsibility for the removal of a person from that council. What we are doing then is giving a veto to the Minister on the operation of the council. We will be dealing on section 49 with the operation of the council. This item is on the setting up of the council. There is nothing in this section more abhorrent than the fact that the Minister of the day can remove a member from that council. It is implied that if somebody is critical of the operation of the Department or of the board, the Minister can eliminate that person.
The provision in subsection (8) is a standard one. If a Minister appoints a member to a board or a council he has the power to discharge or dismiss that person, if the circumstances warrant it. It is something that happens very seldom. All Ministers have that power in relation to semi-State companies. It is very rarely exercised. Normally if it happens there are questions raised in both Houses. It gives rise to debate in each House, which is a fairly effective sanction against unwarranted dismissal of members.
I am glad to hear the Minister suggest that people have not been thrown off boards and councils by Ministers and that it would not be the intention to throw anybody off. We do not have to go too far from the timescale of today to discuss the elimination of members from boards of all descriptions by the present Government. It is stated in this that the Minister must have the ultimate responsibility. Let us be quite straight about it. What is suggested there is that if one does not like somebody on the board or like what they are doing one can eliminate him. It is not standard practice to suggest that because a Minister appoints somebody the Minister should have a right under a subsection of a Bill to remove him from office.
I have the utmost respect for Ministers. I accept their responsibility, but sometimes their political responsibilities override their responsibilities to the boards over which they have control. This Bill is not helped by that insertion. Parliamentary draftsmen speak in archaic language generally, but there is nothing archaic about this language. It is a straightforward suggestion that if one does not like somebody on a particular board or council, one just gets rid of him.
This is a standard provision. If one goes back to the foundation of the State and looks at the number of directors of State companies or members of councils one would find that very few people have been dismissed before their term of office ended. It normally does not happen.
There is one fell swoop coming up.
There is re-organisation of the planning appeals board by legislation. It is a different kettle of fish. The RTE Authority were removed by Deputy Gerry Collins when he was Minister and not without good cause. The entire Authority had been appointed by a Fianna Fáil predecessor.
Do you think he was right or wrong?
He had good cause for doing it.
Can I take the Minister away from the boards and bring him back to the reality of this situation? We are not talking about a board. Generally speaking a board is set up to run an organisation. Here we have a safeguard so that the users will have an input into the operation of both boards. This is totally different from the boards which the Minister has been talking about. We are talking about Users' Councils. The Users' Councils should be set up by the boards and not by the Minister. If they were, the Minister would not have the authority which he has. It is a weakness in the Bill to insert that provision.
I do not agree with the Senator that they should be appointed by the companies. The Minister would have some independence from the companies. If the councils were appointed by the companies, members might be open to the accusation that they put in their own pals to have a kind of a muted dog. At least the Minister will be at arms' length from the companies in appointing these councils.
Let us suppose a member of the Users' Council got certain confidential information about Bord Telecom in order to assess a consumer complaint and then abused that confidential information and gave it to the news media to the detriment of the company. Would it not be right that such a person should be open to dismissal by the Minister?
If sections 48 and 49 were taken together we might be able to discuss that matter, but since at this stage we are only discussing the appointment of the board, it is not relevant to speak about misdemeanours that might occur in the operation of the Users' Council.
It is only prudent to make the provision. I have no doubt that, as in the past, the power will be used prudently by whoever is Minister in the future.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 29, subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert the following:
"(d) to promote, by negotiation with the relevant Company, a code of practice governing the provision within the State by the Company of services under the powers conferred on it by section 63 or section 87 as the case may be and containing provisions relating to:
(i) the standard of service to be provided,
(ii) procedures for raising complaints and making inquiries, for their investigation where necessary and for resolving them, and
(iii) redress for complainants in the form of compensation for loss or injury and abatement or refund of rental in appropriate cases where there has been a failure or interruption of service,
(e) to ensure that the provisions of the code of practice are brought to the attention of users of the service,
(f) to review from time to time the operation and effectiveness of the code of practice,
(g) to establish a scheme of arbitration which shall be available in the case of a complaint which has not been resolved by the procedure laid down in the code of practice and in which the arbitrator's decision shall be binding on both parties but shall not diminish or remove any right of either party to bring an action in Court. The conditions under which and the persons to whom the scheme shall be available shall be determined by the Council and, without prejudice to their general discretion in the matter, the Council may provide for:
(i) conciliation procedure prior to arbitration,
(ii) the payment of fees or deposits by applicants for arbitration, or
(iii) different conditions, fees or deposits, in respect of different types of applicant or different types of complaint."
It will be difficult for ordinary Members to follow the oratory of Senator Killilea in this kind of discussion, but in so far as I can, I want to put forward a very strong case for this amendment. Late and all as it is in the proceedings, I hope the Minister will not mind me going into this at some length. The reason I have tabled this amendment is basically because there is insufficient protection contained in this Bill for the consumers of the services to be provided by the two companies.
It has been made clear by the Minister and everybody who has discussed the Bill that we are moving out of what is described as the civil service environment and moving into a kind of commercial environment. As has already been pointed out by Senator Killilea, in the civil service environment consumers of the services provided by the Department have the protection of the ultimate responsibility of the Minister to the Oireachtas. They have the protection that individual public representatives can raise matters in connection with the Department's functions by way of Parliamentary Questions, Private Members' Motions, matters on the Adjournment, and by generally making approaches to the Minister. They can get answers from him, whether through correspondence or through representations made in the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a certain protection for the consumer in the environment where the Minister is ultimately responsible for the service.
In a normal commercial environment where companies are operating, the consumer is normally protected through the operation of the law. The consumer whose rights are infringed or who is badly dealt with can sue the company involved. It is very noticeable that in recent years under various Governments we have gone to a lot of trouble to improve the position of the consumer vis-a-vis the person who is selling him a service. We have brought in, for instance, the Consumer Information Act and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act which greatly improved the previous situation of the consumer who was just protected by the 1893 Sale of Goods Act. We have also established the position of the Director of Consumer Affairs and given him very considerable powers to deal with consumer complaints and injustices done to consumers. We obviously recognise that consumers need protection and recognise that people who provide goods or services for consumers must have certain liabilities towards them.
In sections 64 and 88 of the Bill we are specifically taking away that protection and leaving the companies with little if any liability to their consumers. Yet these companies are basically monopolies and consumers cannot say, "I'll go elsewhere for my service if you are not serving me properly". Even where there is mention of the possibility of section 39 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act applying to these companies, it is only said that it may apply in limited circumstances if the Minister so orders, and there are other Ministers involved, and so on. That section of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 deals with the terms which must be implied into any contract. These implied terms are things like that the supplier has the necessary skill to render the service, that he will supply the service with due skilled care and diligence, that where materials are used they will be sound and reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are required, that where goods are supplied under the contract they will be of merchantable quality within the meaning of section 14 (3) of the 1893 Sale of Goods Act.
These are fairly obvious and minimal protections for the consumer. Yet we are being told that perhaps, if several Ministers agree, the consumers of the services of these two companies will be given this sort of protection. Unfortunately this section of the Bill was not discussed in the other House because there was a guillotine on the Bill. There was no opportunity of discussing it on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I recognise that the Minister gave certain undertakings and amended section 49 to give him powers in relation to subsection (3) which helps the situation. This does not go far enough. I know that I am at liberty to say publicly that in bringing in this amendment I am acting on the advice of the Director of Consumer Affairs, after consultation with him. He feels quite strongly about this and has been dealing with other consumer organisations and groups with the hope of improving protection for the consumer.
The Users' Council's duties and functions are set out in this section. The council may well be of great benefit to consumers but there is very little guarantee that this will be the case because the council's powers are the rather vague ones that most of these kinds of councils have. They can consider things, report on things, be advised or advise if they are asked, but they do not have very specific powers and rights vis-a-vis the companies. The council may well be able to contribute to overall questions of policy, development and so on but they will not be all that powerful in dealing with the specific rights of consumers, consumer complaints and so on because they can simply advise, report and consider.
As a result of this and because of the history of users' and consumer councils in the past which were part of various Government Departments, the role of these councils may well end up seeming very remote from the everyday concerns of the consumer which all of us, as public representatives, have to deal with — consumers who have a specific complaint or an immediate source of dissatisfaction with the service. Whether they are right or wrong, they feel they have been hard done by.
Any of us who has experience of public life must know that as regards the telephone service, the country is full of people who have specific complaints. Their point would not be met by a Users' Council which simply talks about policy and does not have any teeth in regard to the company when they are dealing with complaints. I am sure the companies will try very hard to satisfy the consumers but they will not inspire any confidence if they are thought to be judge and jury in their own case, as it were. Consumers will find it very difficult to accept the situation when the suppliers of the service seem to have exclusive powers to determine the rights and wrongs of any complaint and to be judge and jury in their own case. There is no redress through the courts or through public representatives.
It was because of that, that I put down this amendment suggesting two related ways of dealing with it. First of all, the Users' Council should have a duty enjoined on it by the Minister to promote a proper code of practice in relation to standards of services and procedures for dealing with complaints, inquiries and redress where the company have been found to be at fault and so on. They should be able to publicise these codes of practice so that consumers will know about them. The Users' Council should also monitor and evaluate the workings of these codes of practice.
However, the code of practice on its own would not be sufficient. It would be necessary also to add the other half of the amendment which states in paragraph (g) that a scheme of arbitration should be introduced. The system of arbitration could be preceded by a conciliation procedure as there is in the Labour Court and other bodies. When we have independent arbitration on a complaint, the decision of the arbitrator should be binding and the company should be bound by the decision. The decisions should be published so that the public would know what was going on. The result would be that the codes of practice would set out what consumers could expect by way of a standard of service, how they should go about making complaints and how the complaints should be dealt with by the companies and the circumstances in which the companies may be prepared to offer redress to aggrieved consumers. Therefore, the function of the Users' Council in this respect would be to develop the best possible codes of practice and monitor their effectiveness. In addition to that, there must be referral to arbitration. If we felt it was likely that this kind of system would mean there would be a great number of trivial complaints brought to arbitration we could, if we wished, impose a fee for bringing a matter to arbitration. If the complaint was justified, then perhaps the fee could be repaid to the consumer. It could work as a kind of deposit in order to prevent foolish use of an arbitration system.
The fact that the arbitration existed together with the code of practice would mean that there would be a considerable incentive within the companies to deal properly with complaints. They would know that if they failed to do so the arbitration sytem would be there waiting for them. This is the importance of having the arbitration system. It would ensure that companies dealt properly with complaints. They would have a certain liability towards the consumer, despite the fact that legal liability is being taken away by this Bill.
Although at this point it would be impossible to estimate the cost of operating such an arbitration service, it need not necessarily be high. The more effective the codes of practice and the more effectively they affect the company, the smaller the number of complaints that would be referred to arbitration. The important thing is that consumers would know what kind of treatment they could expect because of the codes of practice and, at the same time, they would have the ultimate possibility of referring their complaint to independent arbitration.
This would be an effective system of dealing with the various complaints which would arise. I have mentioned the fact that, in the recent past, there have been a great many complaints about the telephone service. I do not intend to apportion blame for this. We must be aware of public feeling about the way in which the telephone service works or does not work as the case may be. If the companies are to operate effectively and are to be seen by the public to operate effectively there must be a real method with teeth for dealing with complaints — not simply writing to a Users' Council which deals with matters of policy, advises and makes recommendations. After all, the company can just turn around and say, "Well, you have recommended or you have advised but we have not the slightest intention of taking any notice of you."
This is the basic background against which I have proposed this amendment and I hope the Minister will be able to accept it even if not exactly in the form that I have put forward here but so that a system such as I have outlined would be set up.
It should be noted that when the existing ad hoc Users' Council was set up by my predecessor, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, it was quite an innovation. It was then and remains the only Users' Council for any public utility. Here we are giving it statutory effect, and we are also extending it. By way of amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil we widened the scope of the section.
Senator McGuinness referred to her discussions with the Director of Consumer Affairs, and we too had discussions with him. We went into the ins and outs of the sort of amendment now proposed. While undoubtedly it is well intentioned, it would be unwise at this stage to put provisions of such a detailed nature into the Bill. We need to consider in a studied way and preferably after some experience of the operation of the statutory Users' Councils under the present provisions the most efficacious form of any further functions which might be assigned to the councils. Another point is that it would be undesirable to specify functions in an over-detailed way in the Bill because such provisions could then only be changed by an amending Bill, even if mature consideration suggested that other provisions might deal with the matter better.
Moreover, listening to Senator McGuinness putting her case, it seems to me that effectively she is suggesting the creation of another large bureaucracy. I would be very slow to create another bureaucracy at a cost either to the taxpayer or the consumer, whose benefits may not be anything like its cost. We have to weigh up all these things very carefully. I would draw the attention of Senators to subsection (3) which was inserted in section 49 on the Dáil Report Stage, on my recommendation. This enables me, as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to make orders to confer additional functions on the Users' Councils in relation to protecting the interests of users of the services beyond the basic functions which are listed in subsection (1) which the councils will be starting with. Subsection (3) provides the required flexibility to meet needs as they arise, particularly to enable developments in consumer protection generally to be applied. I might add that the Bill is already setting a headline in the provisions for statutory Users' Councils, as the Department did in establishing the present non-statutory Post Office Users' Council.
Finally, I should say that the prospective chairmen of the new boards of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann, that is the present chairmen of the Interim Boards, as well as the two chief executives, are particularly noted for the primacy which they accord in their business philosophies to good consumer relations. I confidentially expect the new companies to respect this in their relationships with and responses to consumers. Regretfully, a Chathaoirligh, I cannot accept the amendment.
The codes of practice should be defined clearly by the boards and stated to the public. No matter what the Minister says, it is a fact of life that the greatest drag on a public representative over the past ten years was the amount of correspondence he had with his constituents concerning the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That is an undeniable fact. Just because we appoint a board tomorrow morning all that will not vanish and everything will not become purified. The water will not become clear. For some time in the future tremendous problems will arise in different areas in the relationships between individuals and the boards.
We had redress for those problems up to now. In the other House a question could be asked and answered by the responsible Minister. That is gone now. We are appointing those boards. Responsibility must also be transferred from the public representative to the Users' Councils. Somebody has to act as an intermediary to deal with the problems that will arise. The Minister must acknowledge that fact.
I compliment Senator McGuinness on putting down this amendment. It clarifies the situation in that it asks the board to set a code of ethics, to set a certain standard, to publicise that standard so that the public will know clearly what to expect from the board. If the board are not doing their job, an intermediary is needed, such as a users' council, to act, as Senator McGuinness said as an intermediary in a personal problem between the board and a consumer. Problems will arise.
As public representatives we have thrown away all our authority. We have handed it over to the boards of semi-State organisations. This board will come back to this House only if they fail and they want more money, and the Minister knows that as well as I do.
The point has been made that we have one successful board, the board of Aer Rianta. They do not appear before us. Nearly every other State board come here on an annual trip to collect whatever balances they need. We all stand up like the learned, educated and elected sheep we are and deliver to them the taxpayers' money to squander for the next 12 months and then they will be back with another bill. There is a lot of sense in what Senator McGuinness said. There is a lot of reason in it. If the Director of Consumer Affairs makes suggestions, it is only right and proper that they should be debated here. We should have a code of practice and a standard.
I asked the Minister a straight question about arbitration. On 16 January next a person gets a telephone bill. He says it is wrong. He sends a note to Dublin. If he is not satisfied with the reply where does he go? He has not got his public representative any more. We are to have 20 selected people on the Users' Councils. They will have to be exceptional people because they will be taking over a load of work which was done by public representatives. The Minister should reconsider Senator McGuinness' amendment because it clears the muddy waters in that they set codes of practice and standards by which the new boards will be judged.
The Minister says they would cost money. How much less will it cost public representatives not to have to write letters and make representations? Did anybody ever estimate how much it cost Deputies and Senators to send letters and representations to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs over the past four years to see if anything could be done to solve problems? The Users' Councils should be broadened even further.
The more I think about this the more logic there is in it. We are not creating a vampire. We will get good value for money. There is no comparison when you take into account the number of secretaries employed to type all those letters, the number of people in the Department responding to them, the Ministers who are accused of not sending replies to representations made. We all suffer the agony in our time. I am sure the Minister is suffering it today. You would want to be a ventriloquist to survive in that Department at times. Those problems will not vanish next January when responsibility will be transferred to the boards.
Senator McGuinness has approached this logically and conclusively. I am with her on this, and I hope she presses this amendment because it is the proper approach. As she rightly says, the codes of practice should be defined clearly. I do not see any reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment. To say blatantly that it would cost too much does not hold water when you take into account the hidden cost over the years to public representatives in time and money and to the Department in dealing with those requests. People were frustrated waiting for replies and in the Department there is a general choke-up in the whole system. I hope Senator McGuinness presses this amendment. She will have my total support and that of my party.
On this section there are a number of problems that I see. We get back to the original proposition that the Minister had to have a residual Department of Posts and Telegraphs after the two boards were set up. Now we have the sham, as I see it, of the Users' Councils. Let us be quite specific. A Users' Council is mentioned for each of the boards and on each of these Users' Councils there will be a minimum of ten or a maximum of 20 members. The Minister will have the discretion to sack any member of these councils. No specific jobs are being given to them. The amendment put down by Senator McGuinness gives teeth to both boards. We have had references to the Department of Finance, the Department of the Public Service and in this section to the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism.
We are dealing with amendment No. 5.
I am dealing with amendment No. 5 and I am suggesting that the Users' Council has no teeth. The section provides that:
the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the company concerned and any other Minister who appears to the Minister to be concerned, may confer on the Users' Council such additional functions in relation to protecting the interests of users...
Not alone are we providing this residual Department of Posts and Telegraphs but the section provides that "a Council may, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, employ advisers to assist the Council in its work.
We are talking about a consumer protection group and consultation with Ministers. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill — apart from the amendment put down by Senator McGuinness — to give teeth to two Users' Councils. Not alone are we giving extra powers to the Minister, but we are also providing in subsection (5) that the Minister "may, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, employ advisers to assist the councils. The further we get into this Bill the bigger the administrative monstrosity it becomes.
We are supposed to be discussing the setting up of semi-State companies which are to be commercially viable. We are putting on them constraints which are totally unviable commercially. Unless we put into this Bill the protection for consumers proposed by Senator McGuinness, this whole section is a sham, a PR exercise by the Minister, with absolutely no power except the power to appoint advisers and give to the civil service controls over what are supposed to be commercially viable companies which they should not have.
Now that I am so encouraged by Senator Killilea and Senator Lanigan, I feel even more inclined to press this amendment and to take it as far as I possibly can. Just to reply to one or two of the points made by the Minister, as regards the setting up of Users' Councils, and the fact that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are the first to do this, and this is the first Bill to set them up in semi-State bodies, I accept the virtue of all this. I accept the congratulations of the Department to themselves for having done this. I would say to the Minister that, just because he is good does not mean he cannot be better. If he is good enough to set up a Users' Council he could be better and set up a Users' Council which would actually work.
The whole point of the amendment is that this should be a Users' Council which was not just a piece of windowdressing, but an actual effective watchdog for the consumer, the consumer who has no watchdog because of sections 64 and 88. The ordinary watchdog of the courts is taken away from the consumers by these sections and therefore they need someone else. They have also lost the numerous watchdogs they had in the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the whole point of the amendment. I do not think the amendment should necessarily be rejected because it is too detailed. As I have said, the Minister could bring in a similar amendment himself which would be less detailed than the one I put down.
The terms of my amendment were very carefully considered both by myself and by the Director of Consumer Affairs. These were the terms we felt were the correct ones to make the system work. I accept the point the Minister made that if you put all these details into the Bill you would need amending legislation to change them. Perhaps it would be possible to bring in these functions under subsection (3). The trouble is that we have no guarantee that subsection (3) gives the Minister power to do things like this. We have no real guarantee that this will actually happen. Once we move into the situation envisaged by the Minister, where he says we should wait and see how the Users' Councils work, and so on, inertia then takes over and it is very difficult to make a change. If we do not introduce it at the beginning, it will be much more difficult for those of us who want to introduce more consumer protection to persuade whatever Minister is in power to bring it in at a later stage.
I want to emphasise, as Senator Killilea has done, that the creation of these companies will not make all the consumer complaints in the area of the services provided by these two companies simply disappear by the wave of a wand. The complaints will obviously go on, and we must provide not just a system which deals with them, but a system which is seen to deal with them. I do not accept that it would necessarily be the creation of another large bureaucracy because, as I said earlier, the point in introducing the two things together, the code of practice and the arbitration, is that the fact that the arbitration exists as an ultimate deterrant, as it were, is much more likely to make the companies live up to the code of practice.
I am not denying what the Minister said, that the people in charge of the companies at present are very orientated towards consumer protection. I can never accept in the introduction of legislation this sort of argument ad hominem, where you say: “Ah well, the particular person in charge is a grand fellow and therefore we should not mistrust him”. The present man may be a grand fellow, but we are legislating for 20, 30 or 50 years time, when that grand fellow will long ago have passed away and we may get a perfectly horrid fellow in his place who may not necessarily be directed towards consumer protection.
It is like saying you can leave it all in trust to the bishop because the present bishop is a real nice fellow. You just do not know that the next bishop will be the same class of person. So I cannot accept that it is an answer to the amendment to say, "Well, the present chief executives and the present chairmen are full of goodwill towards the consumer". Perhaps by the time they have received the number of complaints public representatives normally receive about these kinds of services, their goodwill towards the consumer may become somewhat diluted, and they may actually begin to hate consumers after some time. I do not think we can utterly rely on the continuation of their wonderful goodwill. Again, as Senator Killilea said, the present system whereby complaints are dealt with costs a great deal to the public and, even apart from the matters he has mentioned, if one looks at the Dáil Order Paper from time to time and adds up the very considerable cost of replying to the number of parliamentary questions on affairs to do with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs one sees that does away with quite a few pounds. I understand the average cost of a reply to one parliamentary question runs into a couple of hundred pounds at least.
That is what the civil servants told me.
If we are getting rid of all this cost, then we can surely afford a little for a system of arbitration. I am not willing to withdraw this amendment and I am anxious to press it to a vote.
I have nothing further to add to what the Minister has said. One has to be impressed by the strength of the argument made by Senator McGuinness, ably assisted by Senator Lanigan, and by my fellow constituency representative, Senator Killilea. I advise Senator McGuinness not to pay full attention to what Senator Killilea said on this matter. Although he may be very genuine in his expression of his opinion, since he became a Senator the amount of correspondence he has had in this direction and the amount of effort he has put into it have been extremely large but, at the same time, I have lightened his load since I got the job myself. We cannot accept the amendment.
A Chathaoirligh, would you refer the Minister to the fact that he is not in Galway County Council now? He is here in the Oireachtas.
Tá
- Cassidy, Donie.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McGuinness, Catherine I.B.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Smith, Michael.
Níl
- Belton, Luke.
- Browne, John.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Conway, Timmy.
- Daly, Jack.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Durcan, Patrick.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- O'Leary, Seán
On a point of order, because of the narrow margin of the Government win, I would like to ask for a recount.
The Fine Gael Party are probably giving out to the Labour Party, but I could not be sure what debate is going on at the other end of the Chamber.
It is all these Senators who came up for the vote and do not know what has been happening.
It is only right to inform Senators that we are doing our best to finish the Bill as early as possible. It is a Bill with a lot of meat in it, and sometimes it is not easy when one has a grasp of what is going on to let certain parts of the Bill pass without comment. Maybe the Bill is being delayed a little, but if Senator B. Ryan is here he can be a witness that we are earning our crust the hard way and getting badly paid for it.
After dealing with that elegant speech by Senator McGuinness on the amendment, which drew great attention from this side of the House, and we appreciate people coming in to support it, the Minister might realise that there is more to what we were saying than he thought. Before the next Stage consideration might be given to the many good strong and basically fundamental points made by many Senators. It might also be appropriate if the Minister added part of the amendment to the Bill, taking into account the closeness of the vote. That is the narrowest margin any vote on this Bill received in either House — a victory for the Government by one vote. I do not say that to cause alarm but the seriousness of the situation must be taken into account by those in authority and special consideration should be given to that amendment. It would be wise for the Government to heed that amendment. Before the next Stage the Minister might give consideration to that point and the people who drafted the Bill may be able to produce a Government amendment based on Senator McGuinness's amendment. We will wait to see if the Government respond positively to that request.
This section, and each of its subsections, takes away from the Users' Councils the reasons why they are being set up in the first place. Subsection (2) says: "The functions of a Users' Council shall not extend to the consideration of any matter concerning the services referred to in subsection (1) which relates to public order or security". Surely the Users' Council should have to take into account public order and security? This section takes from the Users' Council right along the line. Because Senator McGuinness's amendment has not been accepted, section 48 and 49 are without teeth. This sets up an administrative monstrosity where we have a council being set up for each board and the Minister shall be entitled to appoint advisers to each council. The suggestion that the Minister should appoint advisers to the councils means the Minister will have a bigger input into the Users' Councils than was originally contemplated by the then Minister, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien. Whatever relevance the Users' Councils have, it has been taken away in subsection (11) which reads: "Any difference between a company and its Users' Council as to the information to be furnished to the Council under this section shall, at the request of either party, be determined by the Minister whose decision shall be final". Where are the teeth in this section for the Users' Council? Subsection (3) (a) reads: "The Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the company concerned and any other and any other Minister who appears to the Minister to be concerned, may confer on a Users' Council such additional functions in relation to protecting the interests of users...". There is a suggestion there that a conglomeration of Ministers will be giving consumers protection but there is no protection listed. There is nothing mentioned in this section about the rights of the consumer in dispute with the board because he does not want to pay his bill. He has no redress, and there is no redress being given to him under this section. If you pay your bill the board will determine whether you have a valid point. That is an outmoded type of business procedure. Under normal circumstances if there is a disputed account, one pays the bill, but not the disputed amount. Now we are asked to pay the disputed amount, and the Minister will determine whether it is valid.
The Minister will set up the two councils and decide the remuneration for these councils. He also provides advisers but in the long term, he can take away membership from any member of either council and, in the final analysis, if there is a difference the Minister makes the final decision. This section does nothing to protect the consumers' interests.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House as I have said most of what I had to say on the amendment. I would re-emphasise that the very closeness of the vote on the amendment shows the importance of this issue in the minds of those who represent the public, and I would suggest to the Minister that at least he might undertake under subsection (3), which gives him powers to add additional functions to the Users' Councils, to set up some kind of system analogous to that suggested in the amendment which would provide real protection for consumers. I agree with Senator Lanigan that this section, with-our any additional protection, leaves Users' Councils without teeth and that having taken away the liability of the company to consumers under sections 66 and 84, we are giving no protection in return. I would ask the Minister to undertake to introduce some sort of system comparable to the one I have suggested, as he can do under subsection (3).
The Minister will look at this. We may be able to do something about it at some stage in the future. It is a strange suggestion that Users' Councils should be empowered to consider matters of public order and security. I could not accept that suggestion. The reference of disputes about information to the Minister is one of the teeth of the council. If it was not there, there could be no recourse for the councils.
I have a difficulty about this section dealing with the operation of the interim boards. Subsection (4) reads:
(4) (a) The Minister shall appoint to be a member of the Interim Postal Board—
(i) the person who was appointed by him on the nomination of staff organisations as a member of the Interim Board for Posts (An Bord Poist) which was established by the Minister before the passing of this Act, and
(ii) the postmaster who was appointed by him as a member of that Interim Board for Posts.
(b) The Minister shall appoint to be a member of the Interim Telecommunications Board each person who was appointed by him on the nomination of staff organisations as a member of the Interim Board for Telecommunications (An Bord Telecom) which was established by the Minister before the passing of this Act.
The interim boards have done an enormous amount of preliminary work over the last two years. The inference in this section is that only people appointed by the Minister on the nomination of staff organisations or the postmaster will be reappointed on the interim board to be set up prior to the vesting day. This takes away total credibility from this section because it does not give the people who are already members of the interim board the protection being afforded to certain people who will be re-appointed by the Minister. I sincerely hope the Minister will consider the situation regarding the two interim boards and in deference to the fantastic preliminary work each member of the interim board has done, that they will be eligible for reappointment.
There are many worthy people serving on State boards but not all State boards had the sort of quality that exists in the present Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post. I do not envisage any great changes in the make-up of the present board although there will be additional appointments. I have already said we will be nominating additional trade union members to the interim boards.
The additions will be nominations from the trade unions to the interim boards?
Yes, in the main.
References have been made to An Bord Poist which is the interim board. An Post is the body we have been talking about all day.
There were references to An Post and An Bord Poist. The title will be An Post or The Post Office, in English.
In the definition section the board is really An Post but here it is An Bord Poist. I heard it mentioned several times but we have only come to discuss it now.
This section deals with loss making. Earlier I raised the matter of the smaller sub-post offices and asked for and got an assurance from the Minister on their behalf. I realise I should have brought the matter up on this section. However, it has been dealt with in another section. I take it that the Minister's assurances apply to those affected by this section.
They do.
What is the thinking behind this section where the Department of Posts and Telegraphs do not pay rates on the premises? Now we have rateable valuations being put on the companies involved. This will give the local authorities extra revenue, but would the Minister be able to tell us what is the likely rate that will accrue to various public authorities throughout the country as a result of the valuations the Minister put on the properties under the aegis of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?
At present the Department pay a bounty in lieu of rates, and the total figure at the moment is £1.9 million per annum. It is not expected that there will be any major change.
We are talking about valuations. For example, take new buildings in Ballybrit, Galway. It will not look fair if special consideration is given to the board because of the magnificent building that was built for them by the Department if their rates demand should be smaller than certain businesses around the city which do not have protection of the State but which are paying quite substantial rates for a smaller property to the Galway County Council.
There will be no special consideration for State companies. They will pay the rates due on the properties according to the valuations put on them.
This bears out the point I made today. I asked the Minister of State with responsibility for RTE to explain the situation. I believe the other Minister of State is responsible for kiosks and other things. I make the point because I want to differentiate between the two Ministers of State. The Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, was not very clear. We pressed him on the point of valuations. Valuations are important because they mean money for the county councils, and we are coming to the balances of payments for properties to be valued by the Valuation Office. It is important that we know about valuations. We will find out eventually bacause all we have to do is ask a question of our county council, but rather than do that, that information should be made available to us. Heretofore the Valuation Office had been the arbiters in valuations set by county councils. In this instance, they are going to be the actual bounty seekers. If you are not satisfied, if the Department are not satisfied, or if Galway County Council are not satisfied with the application of the poor law valuation applied to the new building in Ballybrit, who is going to arbitrate? Galway County Council will be demanding their pound of flesh. They will be demanding and seeking an arbiter per valuation. Everybody knows there is a valuation court, but these points should be written into this legislation because the hounddog could be biting at a different heel on the next occasion.
The Deputy may be confusing the valuation of the properties, as quantified by the Valuation Office, with the rateable valuation. All the properties are at present rateably valued and bounty in lieu of rates is paid to the same extent. The amount due in rates by State companies will be equal in all respects to the money paid by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs at the moment. Senator Killilea referred to the respective roles of my two Ministers of State. He mentioned that Deputy Donnellan was Minister of State for kiosks.
No. 9——
I just wanted to make the point that——
The Minister is changing the point.
Deputy Donnellan has precise terms of reference, powers, etc, as Senator Killilea had when he was Minister of State. The fact that they are both from the same part of the country and had the same risk suggests to me that they are congruent, that is, equal in every respect.
I want to clarify a point because it would not be fair if I did not. That is not exactly so. At least in my time I was allowed to visit RTE. Minister Donnellan is not allowed to go near RTE at all. The Taoiseach was afraid that he might be interfering with section 31 as promised to a Sinn Féin member of the Galway County Council who only last week voted for his party again, abnormally on this occasion. I often wonder if the Taoiseach is very happy with the performance of Minister Donnellan in that he has Sinn Féin, the Republican Party, allegedly behind him on all occasions in Galway County Council, as referred to last week in one of the Sunday papers. They are very peculiar bedfellows. The significant difference is that my Taoiseach was not afraid to allow me to go near RTE, whereas the present Taoiseach is afraid to allow Minister Donnellan to go near RTE.
Is Galway the best fitted kiosk county in Ireland?
It was before Minister Donnellan arrived at all.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does section 54 stand part of the Bill? There is nothing in it about kiosks, I think.
It was not I who raised that hare.
I am not too sure if anything legal is involved here. What is the situation regarding the substitution? When legal proceedings are pending in the name of a litigator, can these litigations be transferred by changing a section in this Bill?
The answer is "Yes". That is the appropriate section.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments 6 and 7 in the names of Senators Brendan Ryan, Lanigan and Willie Ryan are related and should be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 34, subsection (1), line 50, after "packets" to insert "defined as all articles capable of transmission by post whether contained in an envelope or not and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any letter, postcard, aerogramme, package or envelope but does not include any packet exceeding 500 grams in weight."
I want to make just a short contribution on this. There should be a differentiation made as between a letter and a parcel. The addition of the word as stated in this amendment would give that protection to An Post. These are the operations of certain courier services.
I have considered these amendments very carefully. Indeed, the interim Postal Board and the unions were at one in seeking these amendments. I have been unable to accept them. The formulation of the exclusive privilege in terms of a weight criterion would certainly have advantages, for example, of simplicity and perhaps of ease of enforceablility, although the practical value of these could probably be exaggerated. However, the difficulties raised by the proposal clearly outweigh at this point any benefits it may have. The exclusive privilege or monopoly being granted to An Post under section 63 is no less and no more than the existing exclusive postal privilege of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under section 34 of the Post Office Act, 1908.
In this, the Bill follows a general principle which was also followed in a number of other respects and which is a very good one, that is, the principle of "no more and no less". The amendment will cut across this in two ways. Firstly, it would extend the monopoly to an area not at present covered by it and secondly, it would, in a different respect, restrict the monopoly in an area which is at present covered. Both the extension and restriction would be objectionable.
Parcels generally have not been regarded as being within the Minister's exclusive postal privilege. The only parcels which will be within the exclusive privilege of An Post under the Bill are those which contain a communication. This is effectively a continuation of the present position under the 1908 Act. The amendment would bring within the scope of the monopoly parcels up to half a kilogramme in weight. While the proportion of parcels under this weight is small, the fact remains that other carriers, such as Córas Iompair Éireann and responsible courier firms, have legitimately carried such parcels up to this. I do not believe that I should lightly or arbitrarily impose in this Bill such restrictions.
Leaving aside parcels, the second undesirable consequence of the Senators' amendment would be that they would reduce the scope of the present ministerial monopoly in letters and other postal packets by excluding items exceeding 500 grammes. While again, the proportion of such items is very small, I confess that, in principle, I would very much dislike the idea of restricting the exclusive privilege in any way in the context of this legislation. I am committed to defending, rather than restricting the exclusive privilege of the postal service.
Let me say that I appreciate the need for a clear statement of the exclusive privilege to be granted to An Post and I have given considerable thought to the matter at the request, as I said, of the interim board and the union. I am satisfied that the formulation of section 63 is a significant improvement on the formulation of the existing postal monopoly of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. This improvement is achieved without affecting the scope of the monopoly as such.
Section 63 grants an exclusive privilege to An Post in relation to postal packets — not letters, as heretofore — thus avoiding any problems, referred to by some Senators on Second Stage, caused by legal ambiguity in the definition of a letter. The definition of a "postal packet" in the Post Office Act, 1908 — which for this purpose is carried forward by the present Bill — is that it is a letter, postcard, printed packet, pattern or sample packet and every packet or article transmissible by post. Under subsection (7) the exclusive privilege does not extend to a newspaper or a parcel, unless a communication or, in the case of a newspaper, a communication not forming part of a newspaper, is contained in it.
I have had to come down against this proposal for the very good reasons which I have outlined, but did so with regret, because I know that the suggestion was very well intended and had real, positive motivations. I have asssured the interim board and I wish also to assure Senators, that in the unlikely event of the present formulation in section 63 giving rise to practical difficulties in implementation, which might be avoided by a revised formulation designed to be generally acceptable to the interests concerned, I would certainly consider amending legislation in the future.
The amendment was put in with the express hope that it would give greater protection to An Post. However, having to regard to the statement made by the Minister and the various commitments that he has given that, in the event of any problem arising in the implementation of this section, he will have a further look at it we will withdraw the amendment.
I agree with Senator Lanigan on that proposal. The Minister has really put his finger on the issue. This amendment has been rightly withdrawn, but highlights the problem at the same time. This is a problem concerning the carriage of parcels for profit, or letters for profit, or all the words in the phraseology used by the Minister, many of which I used to use at one time, but which are gone out of my mind at the moment. He announced them there one after the other. The tragedy of it is, of course, that there are many pirates on the scene, using inner city services and inter-city services around the country. Something like the Minister's performance in another field regarding radio licences should be done between now and 1 January, before the vesting date comes, so that the board will have a clear run at the whole process. The Minister could give to the Minister of State, who seems not to have so much work to do in his Department, the task of clearing the road for An Bord Poist. I am correct, Senator Browne. That is the western Gaeltacht pronounciation, and Senator Browne as a teacher should know it too, but that is a reflection.
I was not arguing about pronounciation. I would hate anybody to think that I was being smart. The board is An Post and the interim board is An Bord Poist.
We are talking only about interim boards.
All day the Senator has been referring to An Bord Poist and it should have been An Post.
I referred to An Post all day long. The Senator is not hearing well. He is like Senator O'Leary, who is back after a few hours relaxation in the country. He is most welcome and will have a tremendous contribution to make.
On a point of order, is it in order for Senator Killilea to taunt the Senator on the Government side in the expectation that——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You are promoting yourself.
I do not know what the answer is going to be but I was not provoking the Senator. He caught my eye, but I had not noticed him in the House until now. I make no apologies for it.
I have been making a point of order.
He was sharp off the cuff earlier this morning. It is nice to see a pleasant smile on his face for a change. He is quite welcome to come in here with a pleasant smile on his face.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Killilea, at ten past ten I would love to know what that has to do with section 63.
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for her latitude on the question. Something should be done between now and January in order to enable the interim board to operate in the meantime and the board after 1 January. Pirates are absolutely unnecessary. I do not see any reason, for example, why the board cannot operate an inner city service, morning and afternoon. It is part and parcel of any programme that will have to come into operation. We had envisaged this. The inner city morning and evening delivery service must be implemented in order to bring the board up to its day-to-day required efficiency. If the board are not capable of doing that, and the interim board must make the judgment on that issue, then they should leave the service available now as it is. However, in my opinion, the board are quite capable of doing it.
The Department, the interim board and the board at a later stage, have to aim towards services like that. I mentioned that this morning as not an unreasonable demand. That is the type of outlook which the board must have. In order to enable them to have that outlook, if it be their intention to do it, the decks should be cleared on this issue. The matters relevant in the submitted amendments will then become irrelevant because they will be covered by the fact that the board are doing that job. The Minister is quite right in that he should not preclude himself from doing anything by this amendment. On the other hand, the balances on the other side of the scale must be arranged too, to be proper and thorough. I would like to ask the Minister what his forecast in this field will be and how and when it will be implemented? Timely notice should be given to those operators who have given a service — a cheap service — over the last number of years in the inner city delivery of letters and postal packages up to the prescribed weights. We should give them time to wind down and time for the interim board to wind up. The people will thus be given an alternative service if not better than at least equal to that given up to then.
As the Senator knows, there is a case in the High Court on this very subject at present. I would be very reluctant to make any comment on it, except to say that there is great scope for improved services from the Post Office. Within the next number of months, we will be introducing a number of new services, even before vesting day.
There is one subsection which we must all welcome, subsection (5) which states that postal packets originating within the State shall not be taken or sent outside the State with a view to having the packet posted from outside the State to an address within the State for the purpose of evading the exclusive privilege of the company. This is a subsection to which we must all rigidly adhere. I suggest to the Minister that he should keep a very close eye on this development, because it has been shown in the past 12 to 14 months that quite a number of people have brought post from inside the State to outside the State for posting because of a somewhat lower postal rate.
Subsection (6) states that a person who breaches the exclusive privilege should be liable for prosecution, being guilty of an offence. I would like to know what type of offence is being committed. What are the penalties going to be? It seems that the penalties should be laid down in this subsection. Maybe they are covered by some other subsection. We should know under this subsection what the penalties will be for bringing post outside the State.
Section 4 refers to offences and penalties. We dealt with it earlier.
What is the penalty under section 63 (6)?
The penalty under section 4 is (1) on summary conviction, a fine of £800 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both the fine and imprisonment or (2) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £50,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both the fine and imprisonment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are on section 65, amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 36, line 34, to delete "not".
The point I am making is that postal packages or letters or parcels be delivered to the place to which they are addressed. The Minister said this morning that with an office block arrangements would be made, but that is not what I was talking about. There was a previous reference by another speaker this morning, with examples given, of procedures in the UK and Australia. As far as I know the Australian system is such that they have post boxes at certain collection points and people may have to travel up to two and three miles to collect their post. It is on this section that I wanted to get an assurance from the Minister that this was not going to happen in Ireland, especially as many parts of Ireland are so remote. Having personal experience, I could see a position where the board would say that it is not financially viable in a certain number of areas to deliver post to the homes of the addresses. I had not anything in mind about the cities because I was more interested in the remote parts of my own constituency and the constituency that I, as a postman, served down through the years. I would like to know the Minister's view on this.
The Senator may be aware that at this moment there are pilot schemes going on in a number of parts of the country in conjunction with and in co-operation with the trade unions whereby post is being delivered to the entrance to an estate rather than all the way up through the estate. The emphasis in this section should be given to the word "acceptable". "Acceptable" means acceptable to the consumer, acceptable to the trade unions. In this day and age no company. Government or Minister can act as if they were dictating without adequate consultation.
My point is that the Department always did this in the past. I do not see why the board should depart from this in the future. It may be acceptable in estates, but we also have the social aspect of it about which Senator Ferris was speaking this morning where very often a person only sees one or two people during the week, one of them being the postman and there are many of these in the remote parts of the country. This would be a very important consideration as far as I am concerned. They are the people I am thinking about, the people who gave a life-long service to this country, the forgotten people, the old and the lonely people. I would hate to think that we were handing over this power and this great service that we gave for 60 years, to a company which was just a money-making machine and to hell with the people.
Who determines what is an acceptable alternative arrangement? I would be a little worried about that. It may be implied, but does there have to be consultation? That is not specified. I can see difficulties arising. I presume it would be postmasters who would deal with this matter in any local area and most postmasters are very reasonable people, but there may be a situation where a postmaster may not be a reasonable person. In certain rural areas one can run into problems which could give rise to difficulties. I would like to be assured by the Minister that "acceptable" in this sense will mean consultation between all parties involved.
I have already said that. If you are living in the real world today, you cannot act arbitrarily. No one acts arbitrarily and gets away with it, especially where trade unions are involved. As I said, the emphasis should be on the word "acceptable".
The other thing I would like to say about this section is that times are changing, things are changing. A lot of our deliveries in the country—as Senators will know—are becoming motorised deliveries. It is often not as easy for a delivery to be made up a boreen when a car is involved, compared with a bicycle. If it suits everybody to change the mode of delivery and the point of delivery, surely the possibility should be there to do that, especially if we can save money. Senator Cassidy was talking about a money-making machine. I do not feel that anybody up to now has expressed worries about this being a money-making machine. There have been many worries about whether it might lose money. I do not think it will lose money, but neither do I envisage it as a money-making machine.
It had better not lose money.
The way the Leas-Chathaoirleach deals with the sections, she has nearly worked out the ones we are going to question. I move amendment No. 10:
In page 36, line 45, to delete "may" and insert "shall".
Regarding Bank Giro, my views on that matter are known to the Minister and to the House since the earlier part of the debate. The hurtful part is the words used and the phraseology picked again by the Minister for the board. It places upon them an immediate constraint that they have to go with—as I called it earlier in the day—a genuflected knee to the Minister for Finance to seek support. Here again, it is not really to him that they should be going in this instance, but down to the Central Bank. The Central Bank should make the decision and the Government should prepare the way for them to enable them to get into this market. I do not think pious platitudes are good enough for the board. The situation should be made clear and the road prepared for them. The direction that the board are taking should be well known to the Central Bank and there should be no obstacles by 1 January, in the Central Bank or any other place—whether it is the Office of the Minister for Finance or any other place. It is the job of the interim board, with the Minister now that the date has almost been set to work towards this goal. It is essential, even at this late stage—perhaps late, but better late than never—that they move into this market place.
Just to follow the points made by Senator Killilea, I feel that there is, within this section, an enormous element of possibility for the extending of services by the board. The unfortunate situation at present is that partial banking services are being operated within the post offices, not full banking services. The board should move into this area.
We have seen over the past number of years tremendous strides being made by the credit union movement throughout the country in the provision of virtually full banking services for the non-commercial sector of our population. They are providing, from their own resources, tremendous benefits to people who would normally not have access to banking services. We have seen the Trustee Savings Banks grow throughout the country. The help being given to people of limited means by the Trustee Savings Banks is of enormous benefit. The extension by the board into the full range of banking services would be something that the staff of the board would appreciate very much. It would be an extension of a service to the public, capitalised by the public, and also of enormous benefit to the public. Unfortunately, at present the Department of Posts and Telegraphs provide very limited banking services and also these banking services are provided in buildings which are not suitable for banking.
I cannot accept this amendment. Suppose the company in its commercial judgment found that this was going to be a loss-making operation. I do not think we should bind them to go into a business that they would commercially judge as imprudent. I do not think that is likely because, as I said earlier today, I think this is a major area for expansion into the financial services. It would be greatly aided by the improved Telecommunications Bill. Senator Killilea mentioned computers earlier. Computers are great if you have access to them. With the improved telecommunications services, all post offices will have access to computers by telephone line and that is where the real potential for growth comes. It must be optional: it must be left up to the company to decide whether it is prudent commercially or not.
What we should be doing is clearing the road for them to make the decision rather than putting obstacles in their way, as you would say. The extent of this is enormous. This to me is the fundamental and basic part of the whole operation of the viability of An Post.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
These amendments are of a drafting nature. An omission was pointed out to me during the Second Stage debate in the Seanad. The same arguments apply precisely to amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 to section 89. Amendment No. 11 is to insert the words "by order" to read "The Minister may by order...".
We are agreeing to the section. With the charges and other terms applicable to services in general, one could only welcome the formation of the new Bord Telecom. A code of standards will come forth from it. I am delighted the Minister put in amendment No. 12 because this gives a little more scope for precarious situations in which the Minister could intervene and which with impartiality any Minister with a reasonable sense of fair play could see and deal with. That will make a significant difference to the arbitration entailed within this section. It is now generally a better section than it was.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 40, line 22, after "Oireachtas" to add "or Local Authority Election—County, Corporation or Urban Council".
The Minister for the Environment is now going to decide the future role of local authorities, the new powers to be given to local authorities, and every other excuse one could think of to avoid having council elections next year. The Tánaiste and his Minister of State, Deputy Quinn, have come up with this new idea that in order to avoid a shambles next year in local government elections we use this decoy. We are to have a revamp of and a new powerful base for local government. Here, the Minister is cutting them all out. Our Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has decided on this without the assistance of the Minister for Finance on this occasion, or the assistance of the Ministers for the Public Service or the Environment. I thought he should have put in "with the consent of the Minister for the Environment" because that has been the theme all day. I feel the Minister is letting down the entire Government.
The Minister should accept our amendment because if we are going to play the game we must all play it and not just one half of us. Otherwise someone will get caught in the sticks and I am sure the Tánaiste would not like to be the person caught, nor indeed his Minister of State, Deputy Quinn. Our amendment would probably help him out in that it allows him out of the trap he has placed himself in. He should accept it because it is genuine and tabled with sincerity. I do not see how the local authorities are to get this huge injection, or revamp, which they are supposed to get over the winter, so as to avoid council elections next spring.
Apart from the politics being played by the Government in this issue, the fact is that local authorities play a magnificent role and in acknowledgment they should at least be given, at the time of an election, freedom to give a letter to their constituents setting out their proposals. There are many people in these Houses who will have a very unfair advantage which they would be able to use. I do not think it is yet agreed on that side to postpone it, but it is coming up. The Minister should include local authority elections. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is hard to know who is the goose or who is the gander in this instance. In order to give a happy balance all round I would assume that the Minister would accept this amendment wholeheartedly and I would appreciate it if he would do it quickly in order to get the matter completed.
I support Senator Killilea on this important amendment. Most of us would not be here today were it not for the wisdom of the councillors of Ireland. For that reason I feel I owe something to these councillors. Although I not being one of them myself I can see that this gives an imbalance to a Member of the Oireachtas when he is going for council elections. Councillors serve the people well. They give of their time freely and get very little in return—a voluntary offering with very little thanks especially when it concerns politics. They give their time not for only for one or two years but it seems, for five or seven year periods at a time. This also throws light on the rumour that only rich men can become councillors any more.
And women.
Rich women.
According to the rules of the Church to which I belong, "man" refers to both men and women. Having said that, we will include ladies, young and old, just as we have men young and old who stand for the county councils. This amendment cuts out all the rumour and lies that if you have the talent and ability and your party wishes to put you forward you do not have to have a healthy cheque book to stand and you have as good a chance of becoming elected as your elected Oireachtas representative or as the man who has an enormous amount of money to put into a campaign.
In supporting this amendment I feel we are doing a great day's work for aspiring new councillors, for the councillors who have given a great service and for the councillors who are finding it hard enough to keep going. It is on this point that I would like to see the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party letting us know before the Minister's reply what they think of our amendment. Some members of these two parties have been here today and some of them have not, and I would like to hear their views on this sensitive issue. It is an issue on which they can give their wholehearted support and it is long overdue.
I support Senators Killilea and Cassidy. Regarding the Tánaiste and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Quinn, I made a long contribution here last week to a Bill. I read the report a while ago and the Minister did not even make reference to the fact that I was speaking. I will deal with him again. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment to give members of local authorities the same concessions as other elected people. They are equally as important as people of this House and of the other House and, indeed, of the European Parliament.
Much as I sympathise with the amendment, what we are seeking to do is provide that those recoupments, which by law the Central Fund makes to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, will be made to An Post in the future. Such matters as free postage at elections are decided on by the Minister for the Environment. Should he introduce regulations extending free post to local authority elections then the section would be amended to meet points made by Senators. I am very surprised that Senator Killilea did not refer to the fact that candidates for Seanad elections do not have free post except if they are lucky enough to run for the university panel.
If the Minister is expecting elected representatives to get free postage from the Minister for the Environment we will never get a free envelope. He will probably give free postage to the county managers but he will not give it to the elected representatives. Now we have another Minister involved in this Bill. We have had five. We will have the whole Cabinet involved soon.
It is not necessarily the Minister for the Environment who is the assembler of law. This House is an Assembly which makes law. I do not accept the argument that we rely on the goodwill of the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for State, or any other Minister to give a facility which has parity across the board. The local elections are fundamental and to bring in a sham proposal pretending that they were not is just another decoy.
It is important that Senators on the other side of this House on this occasion make a positive contribution to this amendment, particularly those who were not given the sacrosanct lift of the masses on being elevated into this House and placed among the famous 11. They will find a good bit of weight in this proposal and they will find it very difficult, either politically or in their hearts — I say it in that way because politically to politicians often comes before their hearts — if they do not contribute. On this occasion, I am offering them both facilities. We in this House can change the law and tell the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to include this amendment. We would not have to depend on the good wishes or the goodwill of the Department of the Environment or the Minister. We will have created the situation where those seeking election to local authorities will have it by the divine right of this House given to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on the issue of postage.
The last day I praised the work of councillors because I know what they are doing. I asked for expenses for them all during the year not just at election time. That is on the record of the House.
In ascribing divine rights to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Senator Killilea is more than excelling himself in his magnificent contribution to this debate. Many of us came from the nursery slopes of the local authorities and know full well that it is work which is given little or no remuneration. Local councillors, generally speaking, are out of pocket by virtue of the work they do on behalf of constituents in pursuance of their political allegiance, careers and willingness to serve the community. This is not the area in which to pursue what is a very just claim. Those of us who met local councillors very frequently within the last two years had the opportunity to discuss in a very heartfelt fashion how they felt about this particular situation. This is not the Bill on which to raise this issue. I ask the Minister to give his own personal feelings in this matter and whether he feels that any discussion with the Minister for the Environment along these lines recognising the just claims with members of local authorities would yield a fruitful dividend. It is long past the time when people who are involved in local councils and corporations should be expected, out of their own pocket, to finance their membership of a local authority.
The Minister started his political career from the basis of Dublin Corporation. Living in Dublin city it is easy to have access to offices but those of us who live a distance of 40 or 50 miles from towns know the extent of expenditure that must be met out of the pocket of the local authority member. Although the Minister and the Cathaoirleach may feel that this item is not specially relevant and it is straining credibility to include it under this section, nevertheless I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on it.
I am sure that there is not a Senator on any side of the House who does not feel strongly that this is a matter of justice and a matter of local democracy. It is about the strength of local democracy. We must ensure that housewives who do not have a personal income and yet wish to make a contribution in the area of local authority are not prevented from taking their rightful place in the democratic system at the local authority level. I am not sure that the amendment which you are espousing comes under the ambit of the Bill.
It is a good start.
I congratulate Senator Killilea on his contribution. I have listened to him all evening and his eloquence has been really rewarding. His grasp of this Bill has equally been so. What Senator Cassidy said about entering local authorities is quite correct. Soon it will only be within the ambit of the rich to become members of local authorities because of all the meetings that have to be attended and because of the cost of postage and telephone bills.
I am a member of the local authority in Kildare and we have free postage to a degree. It is only for the secretary of the county council. Local authorities need to be reviewed and restructured fundamentally. It is at that stage that these charges should be raised. There would be agreement on all sides of the House that there should be a payment for county councillors and definite postage and telephone allocations. As Senator Cassidy said, the burden on county councillors is so onerous that it could well preclude the ordinary working person from being a member of th county council.
I join with other Senators in saying that local authority members should have the provision of free postage. I do not think that the addition of these lines will take away from section 74. That section does not enact anything. It suggests that a recoupment will be made for the loss of postage which it incurs by reason of any enactment providing for free postage in connection with any election. If you leave "with any election" as the end of the sentence and then continue on "that the company shall be entitled to be recouped out of central funds or the growing produce thereof for the loss of postage which is incurred by reason of any enactment providing for free postage in connection with any referendum" and then a separate sentence stating: "the company shall be entitled to any petition or address to the President, the Government or either House of the Oireachtas", the suggestion at present is that the Department are entitled to be recouped for postage in connection with elections to the Oireachtas, referenda or petitions. As the Minister pointed out, the position is that people who want to run for the Seanad on the normal panels do not have the facility of free postage but if one runs for the Seanad on the university panel one has the facility of free postage, which seems to be a ludicrous situation. It would seem that people who run for the Seanad on university panels per se are better off than people who run for the Seanad under the normal panel system.
There are exceptions.
I bow to the suggestion of Senator FitzGerald that he is one of those who is an exception and we accept that. We accept also that his good dear wife does not have to sit at home, as Senator Bulbulia said, because she does not have means of her own. I agree with the aspirations contained in this amendment.
I started my own own career in a local authority. Some Senators referred to Dublin as being easier to represent than the country. Throughout the country, local authority areas form part of constituencies. I had a situation where my Dáil constitutency was part of my local council area. My local council area was bigger. One can imagine the problem of trying to communicate with constituents in such a big local authority area where there were 58,000 people. I am very sympathetic to the points Senators have made. A review of the facilities available to councillors and local representatives is long overdue. I will put it to the Minister for the Environment. A provision of this kind would rightly belong to legislation promoted by the Minister for the Environment dealing with local government and if that was introduced this section would automatically cover the point.
The lead should be given in this Bill and we should oppose the section.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, are related and should be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 40, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "may" and insert "shall".
I want to make a contribution regarding the licence fees and their collection. RTE have given a magnificant service over the last number of years. For the last ten years the problem of collecting television licence fees seems to be getting worse. RTE say there are 150,000 unlicensed sets. That is a scandalous number to have outstanding. If we believe them when they say that the Post Office is not responsible for not collecting these unpaid licences, that is even a greater disgrace. They also claim there is around £8 million uncollected in television licence fees. They need this money badly in the light of competition from BBC, UTV and satellite television. The Minister should look seriously at the system. It is not effective. I am not blaming the clerks of the Post Office because it is the system that is wrong. If that money was collected we would not need an increase in television licence fees for the next two years. That money would enable RTE to keep up the standard that they have been giving. The big danger at the moment with three radio stations and two television channels is that we will have a shorter viewing time and a shorter listening time. It is very late in the night and I will go on about it. The reality of it is that something will have to be done. Is a computer system used for collecting television licences? I understand that RTE have a computer system out there with space available and perhaps the Post Office and the station could together collect these licences in a more efficient manner.
That was a very interesting contribution by Senator Cassidy. He has spoken completely against the amendment moved in his name. He is asking us to change from "may" to "shall"—the present situation "shall" be the situation rather than "may be" the situation. I do not envisage any change in the situation. We have a few hundred employees engaged on the collection of television licence fees. I envisage that is how it will continue. There have been difficulties. It has not been as effective as it might have. I should say that it has little to do with those employees concerned.
This year we are having two campaigns. One was held in April and was very successful. There will be another campaign later in the year. There will be a lot of advertising and seeking out of people who have not paid their licence fees, otherwise known as TV spongers. We are also in the process of computerising TV licence records which will greatly facilitate the checking of households which have not got TV licences. It will, of course, release many people behind desks and get them out in the field to check these things. It is much better that we should leave it at "may" rather than "shall".
On subsection (2) regarding information concerning transactions in television sets supplied to the Minister by television dealers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1972, according to the electrical dealers' association at least 15 per cent of the sets that are sold in this country are coming across the Border. There is no control over the sale of these sets and, therefore, no information is passed to the Department about them.
The advertising on radio, television and in the newspapers regarding the collection of TV licence fees seems to be a terrible waste. It should not be beyond the technical staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as presently appointed, or Bord Telecom when it is constituted, to instal a computer signal into each set. The signal could be transferred to a computer terminal in RTE and it would be virtually impossible for anybody to get away with not paying the fee.
We discussed the problem of 3,000 surplus telephonists. Here is an area where after a training course, a positive contribution could be made by some of them. In rural parts they would have a local knowledge and matters could he dealt with discreetly. There are certain aspects of Irish life that no computer can cope with. The human touch can. Here is an area to which the Minister should give attention.
I do not see any reason to go outside the scope of the section slightly, why in the future the compilation of the Yellow Pages should necessarily be handed over to private enterprise. Some of the 3,000 surplus staff could be involved in this area as well. I asked a question on an earlier section about whether it had been decided clearly and emphatically where the telephonists were going and I was told clearly that they are going to Bord Telecom. I am not sure about the wisdom of that. Somehow we are hiring out the services of the postmaster and perhaps we might be able to hire back the services of the surplus staff on the telephonist side.
I will consider the points made by Senator Killilea. He has repeated a number of times the figure of 3,000 surplus staff. I do not know where he got that figure. There is no such number of surplus staff in my Department.
I will not argue about the figure. I am only going on the figures I believe to be correct. In a report issued by the Institute of Science and Technology in the autumn of 1981 it was clearly and emphatically stated that we would have 3,000 surplus telephonists by 1985. I do not know what the net figure will be at the end of the day, but I would say that the gross figure of 3,000 is not too far out. Does anybody know what the figure is? Does the Minister know the figure?
There is no particular figure.
The Minister would not deny that figure?
I am advised that the figure of 3,000 is not a figure that is known in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
What is the figure? It is time for us to start worrying about it now because the boards are coming into operation in January.
There has been concern about it for some time, even in the Senator's time as Minister of State in the Department. Up to now all staff have been absorbed.
Until such time as we hear a new figure, let us take the figure of 3,000 as a working figure. As neither the Minister nor the Department know the figure, why not chance my figure for a while? If it turns out to be less all the better.
I hope the Minister does not think that I am against the Post Office collecting television licence fees. The Minister made no comment about the 150,000 sets that RTE claim are unlicensed and the £8 million that is outstanding every year.
There have been many figures bandied about. It is estimated in other countries that there is an avoidance rate of the order of 6 to 8 per cent. I do not think it is significantly above that in this country. As far as I can ascertain, it would not be significantly above that. The last campaign earlier this year brought in between £1 million and £1¼ million additional money, apart from fines.
The Minister does not have the statistics of the increase in his constituency?
The Senator can be assured that the law was applied with equal vigour as it was in the case of the pirate stations.
In terms of what has been said by the electrical dealers' association, what does the Minister consider to be the number of television sets sold, which are unlicensed, on which no duty has been paid, and which have not yet been found out by the Department?
It is very hard for me to quantify what number of television sets have been smuggled into the State. I have no doubt that the number is significant, but I have no way of knowing the number. Certainly there are some and, indeed, this is not the only area where smuggling gives rise to concern. I have no way of putting a figure on it.
The Minister is probably more right than RTE. A figure of 6, 7 or 8 per cent is probably a better figure than giving multitudes of noughts, as RTE are quite capable of doing. We have the odd spasms starting in the morning at 10 o'clock usually. We have this big spin-off rolling round for about an hour, and in another hour we get another set of figures. It is all feathering the nest. I accept the Minister's figures of 6 or 8 per cent. At the end of the day no matter what the Department spend on advertising, there are that 5 per cent who will never pay their licence fees. It may not be as urbanised as one would think. There could be a rural implication in it too.
I asked the Minister about his own constituency because I remember when the figures came out first in 1979 the first question I asked was how my constituency was doing. It would not be long until the information would be leaked and a question would be asked in the Dáil about television licences. Then a supplementry would be asked and you would be embarrassed to death. I would hate to see the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs being embarrassed in any way. I wanted to prepare him in case somebody in the other House might ask him a question and he might be embarrassed about the figure in Dublin South-West. I know he feels those things deeply. It would be a great personal load on his shoulders to think that his constituency would show such a low degree or such a high degree, whichever way you look at it, of nonpayment of their television licences. I am sure somebody will ask him some day and I will congratulate him if that figure is not the opposite of what I think it is.
Is the technology available whereby monitoring can take place from within RTE of the number of sets and where they are? Because the way television sets are set up at present, certain sets sold within this country automatically go to RTE when they are turned on and certain sets automatically go to UTV or BBC. This situation was brought to public notice recently in the controversy between "TV-AM" and "Breakfast TV". One of the reasons the BBC seemed to have a huge number of viewers as against ITV was that automatically when somebody pressed the button in the morning they got BBC1. Now they have changed the system. Immediately on changing the system of assessing viewers, the ITV audience jumped by about 200,000 viewers. I do not think any more people are looking at it. It is just that there is a different means of assessment.
I presume the Senator is referring to the possibility of detection of unlicensed televisions. So far as I know RTE do not have this equipment. We in the Department have a detector van that can detect where there is a television set working.
Can it detect where a television set has been installed but is not working?
I do not think so.
That is the important one.
I am proposing that we delete subsection (2) here. This was inserted on Report Stage at the request of the Dáil Opposition. Now problems have arisen about it. They have requested that it be withdrawn, and I agree.
I have already spoken on these amendments. They are the same as those for section 73.
We are talking about licences for the provision of telecommunications services. I do not know whether this comes within the scope of this section. It is a telecommunications service— system in operation in our county and mostly throughout the west of Ireland for the reception of the multi-channel services. This nonsense of people saying it is not viable this way or that way must stop. The people where I live will never get piped television. Let us stop daydreaming.
This deals with telecommunications only.
We are talking about telecommunications.
We are not talking about broadcasting.
Certain officials in the Department would tell you it is rebroadcasting. It is a technical telecommunications device. We should legalise it, and stop this nonsense that there are alternative systems. We are not rebroadcasting. We can put out only what comes in. We cannot change it. There is no way you can twist it or turn it. The ordinary simple people wish to have a choice, and it is a fundamental right to have a choice. Let us open up our minds to this matter and stop this nonsense about rebroadcasting. We should make it legal and collect fees for the services.
The Senator is talking about deflectors, a number of which were in the west. I will be bringing in broadcasting and wireless telegraphy legislation. That would be an opportune time to consider it. This does not deal with broadcasting or television. It simply deals with telephonic communications.
I question that statement. This is part and parcel of telecommunications. It is the bringing in of a signal. It is enshrined in the right to telecommunications. I do not think we have to bring in new legislation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. That is where we are going wrong. We are complicating the matter. It should be simplified. If you make a telephone call to Bangkok how does the signal reach Bangkok? The signal is taken from the air and rebroadcast to my area.
Could I make this point since the Minister has been making the point that there is a difference between telecommunications and the provision of signals for television? This section states that after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister may make regulations requiring persons engaged in the provision of housing and industrial estates and other building developments to provide such facilities as would enable telecommunications services to be provided in those buildings in the most expeditious and efficient manner. In quite a number of areas we have cable television. In other areas there are applications for the licensing of cable television systems.
Irrespective of the fact that there maybe remote areas in Senator Killilea's constituency where it might not be possible to get cable television, provision should be made for the telecommunications network and cabling should be provided for cable television in the near future. With the development of the television service and the development of computer services, it is essential that we have this type of cabling installed as part of the overall development of housing estates. Certain people will be using television as an educational process. People will be using their television set as a video unit for communication in the educational field and in the computer field. Irrespective of the fact that the Minister has stated that we are dealing with telecommunications only on this section, the line between telecommunications and the provision of television cables is a very narrow one and this section should include that provision.
I acknowledge that fact too. We are talking about urban areas and the built up areas. It is a further facility which should be included. If we are talking about Councillor Ó Riain in the mountains in north Waterford and the problem he has in trying to receive a signal from RTE 1 or 2——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
He gets it anyway.
Does he? The problem is that we differentiate on phraseology. The masts have been erected. Does the Minister realise the amount of services those masts could carry? Can this House imagine the amount of services those masts could carry for the people of the whole of the island? Instead of hiding our deflectors in concrete cells on the top of mountains, we should be proud of them and hang them on the mast and control them, and give them to people who have no alternative service. I am talking about the utilisation of what we have paid for expensively. It is nonsense to be hiding behind technical phrasology about rebroadcasting. Let us broaden our horizons.
Senator Lanigan made a very important point about educational programmes. Take, for example, the open univerisity programme. It is not fair that it should be available to the east coast and not be available to the west coast, south coast or parts of the north coast. We should have an equal right to recieve it by one device or another as long as it comes in via telecommunications. I agree with Senator Lanigan. If the facility can be made better in the urban areas, then let us make it better.
In the rural areas where there is no alternative, our magnificent monuments standing beside every new building should be utilised. They were put up at an enormous cost. They did not go up for nothing. We should give the authority to the new board to do this. Forget the nonsense about RTE being protected. RTE are not protected in this city. Are they protected where the density of population is along the east coast? All have their rights there. We should be legislating to utilise the facilities we are making available at great expense.
I do not disagree with much of what the Senator has said, but it does not arise on this Bill. We will be introducing two Bills later in the year dealing with broadcasting and wireless telegraphy. I will bear in mind the points raised by Saenator Kilillea and Senator Lanigan.
The provision of banking services within the whole area of An Post must be looked at very carefully by the Minister. There is an area here which needs to be developed. The small saver has used this facility over a number of years. We should extend into the bank Giro system. We should extend into small loans. We should allow this Post Office Savings Bank to be enlarged into a body which could issue cheques. We should allow it be an addendum to the excellent services which are being provided in the small saving and lending schemes of the credit unions and the Trustee Savings Banks. If we put the bank of An Post into a separate building with reasonable banking facilities, there would be tremendous opportunities available to the board. There is a great need at present tor the provision of extra facilities for the small saver and for the small borrower. We should not allow this opportunity to pass without making proper facilities available for a banking system within An Post.
I agree totally with what Senator Lanigan said in relation to the banking system. There is immense opportunity available there for the small saver, and that is the person we are talking about. There is a facility within the Post Office. It is open six days a week and it is open between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. The county councils give loans to small borrowers hoping to build their houses and then they find they have to go to a commercial bank in order to get bridging loans. Civil servants and gardaí have to go to the commercial banks to cash their cheques. There is a tremendous potential here for a bank for the small saver and the ordinary person. It has been overlooked for too long. The opportunity is there now and the good will is there. The services are definitely there and the people are there to man the services. There is a tremendous potential for the banking system in this Bill and it should be utilised thoroughly.
I mentioned my thoughts on that matter today and I hope it will be carried forward.
So did I, and I fully agree with the sentiments expressed. I had this section amended in the Dáil to read that the company may make regulations. It had read that the Minister may make regulations. We have given more emphasis to the company.
May I have clarification of this section? What is the reason for the section in the Bill?
Section 4 of the Savings Act, 1861, prohibits persons employed on savings bank duties from disclosing information about transactions to anyone other than properly authorised officers of the Minister. This currently includes the departmental investigation personnel and garda officers who are known to the Department to assist in investigating irregularities. The same situation may not obtain when An Post takes over. This section is designed to ensure that information about post office savings bank deposits may continue to be disclosed to the appropriate authorities in connection with the detection of offences.
For purposes of this budget certain disclosures would have to be made to the Minister for Finance. A savings bank is similar to what we envisage the post office bank will be. The building societies are a case in point. If they made their own suggestions as to how to overcome that problem, would the same facility be available to post office savers?
No, it would require separate legislation.
That is a tragedy.
I regret the late hour of the night, but because of the fact that the other House is rising at the end of the week we had to complete this Bill tonight. Our suggestions were made sincerely and positively, with good will and good wishes, and a desire that the proposed new boards will be what we hope they will be, a very favourable addition to the society we live in. We made suggestions on certain sections which the Minister could not accept although in his heart I think he believed in them. I would like a comment on them from him. It is important that the wish and the will of the House should be expressed. I believe the line we were pursuing was the correct one. It is sad that the Minister did not have more time to adapt to our attitude of mind.
This is an opportune time to thank the workers in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who have given such tremendous service over the years for that service. Despite what many critics might say, they have given a tremendous service in the field. They are some of the finest people in the public service whohave dedicated their lives to the Department and who gave freely to this State. Many of them will be making their abilities available to both boards. We wish them well in that new project and we also wish the boards well. I sincerely hope they have a great success. I trust they will bring to fruition a great national and natural potential. I wish both the staff and the new boards well. I hope the staff who are daring enough to move with the boards will ensure that the boards become strong, powerful, forward looking and profit making which is most essential today.
In view of Senator Killilea's complimentary remarks I want to compliment him and the Opposition side on more than 13 hours of debate. The Minister has taken on board many of the comments made. I compliment the Minister on making many amendments with which the workers in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were associated. It is essential that the Minister has this Bill back in the other House by tomorrow. He accepted amendments in this House. With his voting power he could have insisted on the Bill remaining as it was. He recognised the input from this House and accepted amendments which were to the betterment of the Bill. The contribution of Senators on the other side of the House is to be commended. Senator Killilea spoke with authority and experience in this field. On this side of the House we enjoyed his contributions. He had a great deal to offer on this legislation. The Minister has taken most of the comments on board and the workers involved will certainly appreciate input from both sides of the House.
I want to thank Senators for the contributions they made from both sides of the House. I very much agree with what Senator Ferris said about Senator Killilea's contributions. I want to thank all Senators. Even though the debate was long, I enjoyed it very much and welcomed it.
I believe that in enacting this legislation we are taking a very major step indeed. Half the civil servants involved will leave the Civil Service and go out into the commercial world. These decisions, of course, were taken some time ago. They were courageous decisions and right decisions. Like any courageous decisions there are attendant risks, and there is no guarantee of automatic success. There is an overwhelming probability of success. That will be all the more assured if there is the fullest determination and the fullest co-operation on the part of all the personnel involved. If that determination is there and if that co-operation is there, the public, whom the services are there to serve, will benefit. The workforce will benefit, and the Exchequer will benefit. That is the likely outcome. Potentially there is a very bright future for both services.
I introduced over 150 amendments to the original Bill which was introduced in the last Dáil by my predecessor. Deputy John Wilson who indicated on Second Stage that he would introduce a number of amendments. I have taken on board those amendments. In the Dáil, on Committee Stage, I accepted quite a number of suggestions and amendments from the Opposition. This Bill is very much a product of both sides of the House. The debate in both Houses has been excellent.
Because I believe so much work has gone into this in the past I want to pay tribute to my predecessors, starting with Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, and then on to Deputy Faulkner, who really instigated the Dargan Review and a number of other things besides, and also appointed the two excellent boards we have. They are certainly model boards in my view. I want to pay tribute to Deputy Reynolds and Senator Killilea who as Minister of State did an excellent job and continued the good work. He took the important step of setting up Irish Telecommunications Investments Limited. Also, I include my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Cooney, and Deputy Wilson who was my immediate predecessor.
In addition to that, an enormous amount of work has been done by the staff of the Department, as Senator Killilea will know. This is a very big Bill with a huge number of amendments. The work put in by officials in my Department not only in terms of long hours, but also in dedication, commitment and a desire to be positive has greatly impressed me. They deserve the thanks of both Houses.
I want to say to the staff of the Department who will be affected by this re-organisation, that I thank them for the constructive way in which they approached us on the sort of amendments they proposed and I wish them and the boards and the chief executives every good luck and every success in the future. That success is very likely and very probable given co-operation all round.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Could I have an indication from Senator Ferris as to when it is proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 10.30 in the morning.
I do not know whether it is fair to expect us to be back at 10.30 a.m. This has been a very long day and a difficult day and tomorrow will be another long and difficult day. Could we postpone it until 11.30 a.m.?
We have legislation coming from the other House. It is imperative that, as part of the Legislature, we play our proper role. I am sure the Senator's Whip will allow him half an hour extra in bed, but we will sit at 10.30 in the morning.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.05 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 July 1983 until 10.30 a.m.