Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1922

Vol. 1 No. 33

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. ESTIMATES. - POST OFFICE.

I beg to move the Estimate for £2,756,337 be granted for the year ending 31st March, 1923, to defray the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.

I think the Postmaster-General knows more about it than I do, and he will reply to questions and arguments in the Debate.

I think whatever the Postmaster-General may have to say subsequently about this Vote he is certainly to be congratulated in having furnished the Dáil with more ample and complete documents in explanation of the Estimates and of this sum for the Post Office than we got before in connection with any of those Votes. I think that is a practice that might with advantage be adopted by a good many other departments, and that we should have the full and complete information that we have here in this instance in respect of them, and, I think, the matter is one that should form a precedent which is capable of a considerable amount of extension. Turning to the document to which I refer, I notice that the Postmaster-General makes reference in this statement to a loss of £1,250,000 to the Irish taxpayer on the whole of his services. Recently in the public press we saw the Secretary of the Post Office referring to this branch of the National Service as being one that ought to pay its way. I think this is a statement with which the majority of the members of this Dáil will very heartily agree. But in order that any enterprise should pay its way a right policy is necessary to be adopted. And the first condition of a right policy is to discover exactly what the contributory causes of the loss are. I notice that the Postmaster-General here has set out in the third paragraph of his statement what he supposes to be these contributory causes, and I venture to say he has left out of his statement what is possibly one of the most important of them all. It is a recent experience in England that when they dropped the letter postage from 2d. to 1½d., the total receipts were actually greater, and it is the opinion in England at the present moment that if there should be a drop of from 1½d. to 1d. that the receipts would be greater still. I think one of the Ministers here says that that is not a fact. I am not stating it as a fact. I am stating it as a matter of opinion that exists across the water. And I believe that if this postage of 2d. here in this country were dropped to 1½d. the actual receipts would be greater than they are with the postage at 2d. And, therefore, when stating here the contributory causes for this burden on the public purse, the Postmaster-General has omitted what I judge to be the most important of them all, and that is the foolish policy of making communication expensive instead of making communication cheap. I do recommend to the Postmaster General's attention that it should not be said in this country at the present moment that the postage is costing more than it costs in England, and that it should continue to do so. And while it may be true—I do not know, but other members will deal with it—as alleged that a great deal of the cause of the loss is high wages— that may or may not be the case, but I do say, and I am perfectly convinced, and a number of people are perfectly convinced who are capable judges of running an enterprise as a business concern, that a far more important cause than high wages for the loss is the high expense of the present postage system. I want to touch on one item set out in his statement which is to be found on page 5, where he deals with a subject which he says has aroused a great deal of interest in many places, namely, the subject of broadcasting. He says that they are also experimenting on this subject in England and that we have taken pains to despatch an expert to study the system in foreign countries, but that he is not satisfied that the time has yet come to take any definite steps towards broadcasting in Ireland. And he goes on to say that he believes that early in the New Year it will be possible to introduce a scheme that will meet with general approval. Now, I am not as a rule reluctant to undertake adventure or to hang back because others are hanging back. But I believe it is true that the experts who went to foreign countries were not impressed with what our neighbours were going to do. I do think that the Irish Free State, at the present moment, should try and profit from any mistakes the other nations may make rather than that they should profit from any mistakes we make. There are other forms of broadcasting than the form referred to by the Postmaster-General, and there I do agree that we should do all we can, but I do not believe we should venture into the other until we get more settled conditions, because in any case it will not give more employment. There is one more question touched upon for the rebuilding of the Post Office to which I should like to refer here. I earnestly hope, in spite of what the Minister for Finance has said about his natural reluctance to undertake the rebuilding of public buildings while the poor are so badly housed, that this matter will be gone into very carefully. It is not a satisfactory thing, and it would be true to say that it has given rise to a great deal of public discontent, and general unrest in the minds of the public, that these great public buildings should be standing in the streets dismantled. It was frequently said amongst those who had to share His Majesty's entertainment in 1916, when we came back at the end of that year, that if the then British Government had been wise they would have rebuilt the Post Office and not have left it there as a sad sight to the citizens of what occurred owing to their policy, and I think that was a very sound observation, and it was made by the late President Griffith, and it is one from which we might learn. It certainly would be a great public service if these buildings were rebuilt at the earliest possible moment, and when they are rebuilt I hope they will be rebuilt in consonance with carefully thought out plans.

I think the Deputy should have raised this question on the Vote dealing with Public Buildings.

I did not raise it on that occasion when that Vote was before the Dáil because of a remark made that it would be better to raise it when the Post Office Estimates were under discussion.

I am absolutely blameless in regard to that. I have no recollection of any such comment being made.

You not only always feel blameless, but you look blameless. But the comment was made.

Do you say the comment was made by me?

No. It was made by Deputy O'Shannon.

I made no such comment, and I am not to be responsible for what Deputies say about matters of Order.

Am I in order now in referring to it?

Yes; in referring to the question of Post Office rebuilding, but you are not in order in raising the general question of the aspect of rebuilding in the city.

I am now referring to the rebuilding of the Post Office, and the reason I raised it in connection with other buildings was because I think the right place to house the Post Office would be, not the old Post Office site, but the Custom House.

There are one or two questions that the Postmaster-General will answer when making his reply. One of them refers to the question of transfers of Irish people in the Post Office service across the water, or under the North-Eastern Government, to the Irish Service. There are a considerable number who are anxious to return to Ireland and take service under the Post Office here, and I should like to know what exactly is the position in connection with them now. There is also the question of temporary writers. I would like to know what exactly their position is at the moment and whether anybody except ordinary transfers has been brought into the Post Office Service from across the water, that is, anybody who would not be ordinarily transferred. I expect that the Postmaster-General will be able to give a fuller explanation than he has already given in his circular as to why the Post Office Service is not paying, that is, why it is not balancing so well as it might. I cannot believe it is due to high wages, or very largely due to them, and I think it is not at all fair when he attributes rather an undue proportion of that to Irregular activities against Post Office Services. Undoubtedly some of it may be due to that. But there was a certain amount of interference during the earlier regime before the Irregular activity began at all. I do not expect him to say he is going to bring down the price of the ordinary 2d. postage at all, though it is rather remarkable that in the Six Counties of the North East and in England the ordinary letter service is cheaper to the public than here. And there seems to be some prospect that in England it will go back nearer the old figure than it is now.

There are several matters in connection with this Vote and with the whole Post Office that I would like to raise, but I feel that to a certain extent I am debarred from that, seeing that a Commission with which I am associated is considering the whole organisation, but there are just one or two matters I feel it incumbent to raise. I think we may take it as axiomatic that if one were to have successful organisation it is necessary to have as near as humanly possible contentment and harmony amongst the staffs generally; and when the present Postmaster-General took over office in last February or March, I remember that he issued, in the first number of the Official Circular, a statement saying that it was his intention to make the staff the most contented staff in Europe. That was a very laudable ambition on his part, but I am afraid he has not been over-successful up to the present. Now, we had a strike some time ago, and I do not want for a moment to discuss the merits or the demerits of that particular strike. I will dismiss it by saying that I think personally that if a little more tact had been shown—and possibly this might apply to both sides— that strike would not have happened. But the strike did happen, and while I have a certain amount of sympathy for those engaged in a fight, while the fight is on, in fighting as hard as they can, I believe when a fight is over it should be over, and it is a point in this connection I am anxious to raise now. I happened to be associated to some slight extent with the settling of the strike, and it certainly was understood, if not pretty clearly expressed, that when the strike was settled there would be no victimisation. Now, you may say that victimisation to one person means one thing, and to another another thing. To some people, perhaps, victimisation may mean dismissal, and dismissal only; but there are other forms of victimisation, or what may be called victimisation, and I think some of the things that have happened since are such as to increase to a very great extent the discontent that existed in the Post Office staff with regard to administration. Now, I certainly regard as victimisation and as a breach of an honourable agreement that those persons who did not go on strike, or who, in common ordinary language, scabbed during the strike, should be specially rewarded and specially promoted because of their services during that time. We are told—and it should be the case in all services—that promotion is made on merit, coupled, of course, with seniority, but, I am afraid, that, in the mind of the Postmaster-General, at least, merit does not mean what it is intended to mean. I do not want to go into details with regard to this, except to say that the details have, I understand, been put before the Postmaster-General, and he has taken no steps to meet the complaints which have been made on the part of the staff. I certainly think that when you find a man promoted by three steps, when you find an ordinary sorting clerk and telegraphist promoted over the heads of 92 or 96 who are senior to him in his own grade— promoted over the heads of 44 overseers —promoted over the heads of 14 assistant superintendents, and made a superintendent, that the Postmaster-General must have made use of the opportunity during the fortnight or three weeks' strike of observing the particular merit of this particular individual who worked in the sorting office during the strike. I do not want to make any particular capital out of this, except to say that I do not think it was wise—I do not think it was tactful—I do not think it was right that a man should be promoted in this way. It does not make for contentment. It does not make for harmonious working. These things are resented—and strongly and rightly resented, and I think it was not worthy of any man occupying the position of the Postmaster-General. As I say, when the fight was over it should have been over. I was pained and surprised to learn of these details which, in my opinion, in any case, amount to victimisation. I would be glad to hear what the Postmaster-General has to say on that matter, and whether or not it is yet too late to have a matter like that righted.

What concerns me most in these Estimates is that £1,194,937 should be lost this year, and I would like to ask the Postmaster-General how he is going in the near future to obviate that loss. During the postal strike an observation was made here that there would be a loss of £1,250,000 in the working of the Post Office, and I began to think where this loss was taking place. I believe it occurs because there are too many postmen engaged in rural areas delivering letters. I do not object to receiving my letters every morning, but when it is going to cost the country £1,250,000 for delivering letters in every boreen and every road in the country, it is a different matter. In many places you will see postmen going out with perhaps one letter a week for one house, and yet he has to go the round daily. I think now that we are working on our own we could very well go back a step, and let us go to the Post Office and get our letters. Perhaps the Postmaster-General could give these postmen something else to do in addition to delivering letters. Perhaps that might be a favourable proposition. I think we are paying too much for our deliveries—especially when we are at the loss of £1,250,000, and when we only spend £400,000 a year on agriculture. With regard to the cost of postage, I believe before Sir Roland Hill introduced the penny postage, the rates in England were sixpence, and it was not a paying proposition, but it became a paying proposition when the rates were reduced to a penny. If the Postmaster-General reduced the cost to a penny now it might bring in more revenue. If I could get a stamp at a penny I would not mind writing letters to my constituents. I have heard a man say at an auction, "Take your cheque or I will have to spend twopence to send it to you." If it had been a penny he would not have said that. I think Deputy Figgis is right in recommending the Postmaster-General to seriously consider the question of reducing the postal rate. With regard to the Post Office, I believe neither the Postmaster-General nor any one else, can make this an efficient service if he has not a proper place for conducting the business. There is no such place to-day, and I believe the Government are wrong in not getting this building on hands. If the British Government blew it down, I do not see why they should not give us money to put it up again. I do not know whether that will come into the agreement between England and Ireland or not. I believe it will be money well spent if you provide suitable accommodation for the Post Office, instead of having the work conducted in a backyard or around corners where it cannot be done efficiently.

I would like the Postmaster-General to explain the cause of the loss in the working of the Telegraph Department. There is a loss according to the Estimates proposed here, of £131,481. It is quite possible, as far as I can see, that this is part of the backwash that has been handed over to the Postmaster-General as a result of the British administration. I believe it was part of the British policy to encourage, by giving facilities through the Post Office, the Propaganda Department of the British Government when they were in control of this country to do their political work. I wonder whether there is any necessity to continue those special facilities for the Press people, which are not afforded to the ordinary people, to send telegrams. I would like to know whether, in his opinion, business people should pay more proportionately per word for their messages than people such as I have referred to. I am in absolute agreement with Deputy O'Connell—and I would utter a friendly warning to the Postmaster-General—that actions such as have been referred to by Deputy O'Connell in giving preferential treatment to those supermen who have worked during the Post Office strike is going to recoil upon himself later on. It may not be creditable for me to say— especially to the Postmaster-General— that I have taken part in strikes in a service where the number of men employed was greater than those employed under his supervision in the twenty-six counties, so far as the Post Office is concerned. It has always been the experience—and I am sure it will be proved by bigger men than the Postmaster-General—men who have controlled bigger staffs and who have tried this question of victimisation—that in the long run that policy does not pay. I believe that if he intends to pursue that policy—and I would warn him against it—it will recoil on him. I have been told to-day of a case where a young girl who was employed in the Post Office for some time in a temporary manner who went out on strike in the recent trouble. This particular young girl was awaiting a permanent appointment in the Post Office and was promised it. I am not saying now that the Postmaster-General himself is responsible, but as a result of going on strike this girl's permanent appointment has been held up, and that is the reason that has been given for it. I trust that is not part of the policy of the Postmaster-General, at least if it is there is trouble brewing for him in cases of that kind. I think it will be found that a policy of that kind is a bad one and I cannot see for the life of me how the Postmaster-General as the head of a Department under a now native Irish Government, hopes to have an efficient service in the Post Office if he intends to pursue tactics of that kind. I hope he will review some of the things that have taken place as a result of the recent strike, and as a result of such re- consideration that there will be a more friendly and a better spirit of co-operation between the Postmaster-General and the people who work in the Post Office in the interests of the community as a whole.

A few remarks have been made by Deputy Wilson about postmen. He said there should be less postmen in the towns in order that we might be able to make the Post Office pay, and also suggests that the Postmaster-General should find some other class of work for the postmen when not already employed. I would like to explain to the Dáil that postmen in the country have to go out at 6 o'clock in the morning, and probably cycle six or eight miles delivering letters, and then wait in a town or district, seven miles from their office, before returning at 5.30 in the evening with letters which they have collected. I fail to see how the Postmaster-General will expect these men to do extra work in addition to what they are already doing for the authorities. I agree with the Deputy when he said that it would be a better paying system for the Government to reduce the price of the postage stamp. From a Labour point of view I think it would benefit Labour as well as the Post Office if they did so. Take large firms that employ 400 or 500 persons and all the communications they send out to answer orders. Postcards are also sent and they cost 1½d. each. If postcards were 1d. or 1/2d. that firm would probably save six or seven hundred pounds, which would enable them to pay their employees a decent wage and prevent strikes, which mean a loss of time and money to the nation. Further, I agree that if the price of the postage stamp was reduced the Government would be able to make a good deal more money, because it is a well known fact that a person who has a huge amount of correspondence will not answer 20 per cent. of the letters when they cost 2d., where he would probably answer 95 per cent. at 1d. I have nothing further to add but only to endorse the remarks made by Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Davin with regard to victimisation. I think victimisation is one of the worst tactics that any Government or body could adopt, especially after strikes, because as the other Deputies have pointed out it will recoil. In other words "He that loveth the danger shall perish in it," so shall the Postmaster-General.

I would like to ask if anything can be done with regard to the restoration of sub-post-offices. A few years ago many of these sub-offices were shut up for the time being, and it was thought they would have been reopened after the European war. They are not being restored and it is causing a great deal of inconvenience in many districts. I would also like to know when it is proposed to renew Sunday deliveries? I do not agree at all with the remarks made by Deputy Wilson. I agree with him as to the price of stamps. I believe it would add much more to the revenue of the Post Office, if the price of postal stamps was reduced, and also a reduction in the cost of telegrams. As regards victimisation, a case was mentioned to me of a youth from the North who was in the Post Office down here in Dublin and who was dismissed or rather was told he was not wanted. That was owing to the fact that he went out on strike. I cannot say if there is any truth in that, but I would like to know. Another matter is regarding suspensions or dismissals that took place. I mentioned one case, that of Mr. O'Kane, of Carlow, and I have a question down about it.

That question is going to be answered to-morrow.

I suppose a supplementary question will be the best way of dealing with this gentleman, Moynihan. If anything can be done for the restoration of the sub-office it should be done and done immediately, and also for reducing the price of stamps and telegrams. At the present time there are in many cases big delays in the delivery of telegrams. I could mention cases that have occurred, and I intend to draw attention to it, if it occurs again. It happened in cases I was concerned in myself. The delay in the despatch of telegrams was said to be due to the want of bicycles, but in many cases where people live in the town I do not see why a bicycle would be needed to go up a street or two to deliver telegrams. They could be delivered much quicker than a couple of hours after arriving in the office.

I would like to ask the Postmaster-General just one question. I would like to have some more details in regard to telephones. I do not think any Deputy has touched upon that subject. Has the Postmaster-General any plans for improving the telephone service in the way of extension, or is there any hope in the near future that telephone charges will be reduced and the service made more generally efficient? How far has the Postmaster-General gone in the way of trying to introduce automatic telephones? Some information on these points would be of interest to the Dáil.

To my mind there are three reasons why the Post Office is not paying. One must be that it is over-staffed; the other is that it is overpaid, or the delivery of letters in the rural districts is too expensive considering the amount of revenue that is received. It is quite a common thing in the West and rural districts in other parts of Ireland that a postman would not deliver more than one letter in the whole week. The rural districts of Ireland are not inhabited by letter-writing people. Still you must have postmen under the present system, and in some districts it might cost 50s. to deliver a letter. That is not an unusual thing. I think you could curtail or economise by having a different system in the rural districts. It is only in the populous districts where you have a letter-writing people that the Post Office pays. In England it always pays, because it is a thickly populated country, but in the rural districts of Ireland we have not a letter-writing people. The average Irishman is not a letter-writing man, and the cost of delivery is tremendous. Mr. O'Connell knows his own district in Galway, where perhaps a postman would not have one letter to deliver in a week. There are postmen delivering nothing, only walking about the country.

There was reference made to victimisation, and I want to draw attention to the case to which attention has already been drawn privately. I think it demands further consideration. It is the case of a man who was in the service in Belfast, and for reasons that were satisfactory to himself and to his superiors he was transferred to Dublin— loaned to Dublin. He was working in a particular department which was not involved in the strike. He was invited or directed, I do not know which, to transfer his services from the clerical department, where he was engaged, to the sorting department. And being a man who had been for a long time engaged in the organisation of the staff in the North, he declined to do a disloyal thing, to do a mean thing, to endeavour to break a strike by transferring his services in the manner directed or invited. The strike was settled, and he was directed to resume work in Belfast. I am not going to say anything about the reasons why he did not think it wise to go to Belfast and resume his services there. The man himself challenges any inquiry into his record. But it would not be in his interests to state the particulars publicly here. I would urge that this case, at any rate, should receive the consideration of the Postmaster-General personally, or even to go beyond the Postmaster-General himself in this matter. Certain suggestions have been made that the man denies the truth of. His career and future depend upon his word as against the word of a superior. That man is willing to go before any person independent of the controversy to have his case examined, and he is prepared to abide by the result. I want to say a word which has not been said, and that is in commendation of the promise contained in the statement of the Postmaster-General in regard to insurance and the Savings Bank Department. I am very glad to see that it is the intention of the present administration to extend the work of these two departments—perhaps one might almost say to start and put on a proper footing an Insurance Department and to extend and popularise the Savings Bank. I agree entirely with the suggestion that is contained in this report that these two departments are capable of very great development to the common good. And I hope that as soon as possible the promise contained in this report will be put in hands. A good deal has been said about the various defects of the Post Office Service, and the suggestions in regard to the future. We are promised not yet by the Postmaster-General because he, following the example of his colleagues, has not deigned to give us any outline, except this printed one, of policy which his chief official has told us publicly is the policy of the administration— to run the Post Office as a business concern. That, of course, will delight the hearts of many members. They are going to run it as a business concern, as a profit-making concern, if possible. The efforts presumably, if it is to be a business concern, will be directed to the production at the end of the year of a surplus. Well, I warn members who are asking for rural services that they are not going to get them, if the Post Office Service is going to be run as a business concern. You are not going to get cheap postage, you are not going to get cheap telegrams, you may, possibly, get cheap telephones, but if you are going to run this as a business concern all these hopes will be dashed to the ground. The population of the Twenty-Six counties is too sparse to make the Post Office Service a profitable one except in the larger centres, and the constituents of our friends from the country are not going to be served as well as they are being served to-day, if the promise of the Secretary to the Post Office is going to be adhered to. I do not believe he intends it shall be adhered to. If this is to be run as a business concern, it is only the profitable parts of it that attention will be paid to. A very informative paragraph appeared in the newspapers, officially supplied by the Post Office. This paragraph appeared on the same day as the statement of the Secretary to the Post Office, and it was to the effect that instructions had been given, very rightly, as I think, that all stores shall be purchased of Irish manufacture provided the cost does not exceed by 20 per cent. the cost of the same materials if bought across the water. There you have the first flat contradiction of the demand of the Post Office that it should be run as a business concern, because business concerns that are aiming at profit do not make a condition of that kind. I believe it is a very wise proposition for a public service. It is not going to be done by the business man who is out for making profit. So we have got to mark off as of no account that particular promise of the Postmaster-General's Secretary. I contend that having due regard to economy and efficiency and getting the best value out of organization, you have got to think of this as a public service and not as a business, as business is understood. If you are going to try to run it as a business, let it out to contract, frankly and openly, and run all the risks. But you cannot do that and give the service. I warn members that in this country you will find the result will not be even as efficient a service as we have to-day. The question of wages and the payment of staffs for services rendered immediately arises, and I lay down this proposition: as a Government Service—and it ought to apply to private services, but we cannot insist upon that at the moment—the first condition should not be, as the Post Office authorities seem to desire, the competitive price of labour in the market. It should be a reasonable payment for service, based upon the human needs of your servants in modern society. We are told that it shall be run as a business concern and that the wages paid for service shall be based upon the competitive price of labour of a similar kind in the market. That is a reversion to the early 19th century economics. I hope it is not going to be the basis of the policy of the Post Office or any other public service in this country. The competitive price of labour in the market means the dehumanising in Ireland, as it has been in England and other countries—the dehumanising of men and women—and if we are going to revert to that position then we have the whole strife, trouble and disgrace of the 19th century to go through in this country, and we shall arrive at the end of the strife, stress and disgrace to find eventually that it shall be the human need in civilised society that will have to be the basis of the payment for services, and not competitive prices in a labour market.

A Deputy here has made a remark with regard to the Postal Service in which he says he would wish the rural services discontinued in parts of Ireland. I wonder does he advocate that in his own constituency? By his remarks I do not think he does. I look upon the Postal Service just as the Dáil as a whole should look upon it. Is it a service to Ireland as a whole that the rural Postal Services should be discontinued or not, or would we consider it in any particular interest? I would like the Deputy who made the remark to state if he would like the rural services discontinued in his own constituency?

The Deputy has misinterpreted my remarks. I said that in my opinion there are too many postmen engaged in the rural services. I have no inside information on the matter, but I believe there are something like 5,000 postmen employed daily delivering letters, and unless you give them something else to do it is too costly a system and some other means will have to be adopted. Perhaps motor cycles could be provided, and so reduce the number of men, or perhaps they could be given something else to do. Many postmen have so little to do that they engage in rabbit buying and egg buying. A postman in that case would be having a subsidy from the State for delivering nothing, and he receives also a subsidy from his own enterprise in buying these things, which he is able to do by going around at the State expense. I am not against the delivering of letters if it could be done economically. The Postmaster-General is well aware that a system could be devised by which letters could be delivered more cheaply than they are under the present system. If he finds he cannot deliver them I am quite satisfied for one to go to the nearest Post Office for my letters as I did when I was a boy, and many of the members here did, too, when they were boys.

Even though there are only a few letters to be delivered we want to have an efficient service in the country as well as anywhere else, and we will have it, even though it is for poor people. There must be a better system of dealing with it and there must be a daily delivery.

As the Deputies will understand, the system with which we are dealing is one that has been handed over to us, and naturally it will take us a very considerable time to alter that system to suit Irish needs and requirements. We have already set up a few very capable Committees with that object in view. The question has been put by more than one Deputy as to the cause for this heavy loss in the Post Office. Well, I have dealt with the main causes of that loss in my memorandum, which you have received, but there is one cause which I think requires special treatment, and that is the employment of a force of about 5,000 rural postmen, who are engaged in covering very extensive territory, with a very small and poorly paying volume of work. It has been suggested in the course of the discussion that perhaps some change could be brought about in this method of delivery. I know very well that to abolish the rural post would not be a popular step. As a matter of fact I think it would be rather strongly resisted, and perhaps because of the anticipation of that resistance we have examined other means or other substitutes. We have, for instance, come to the conclusion that it may be possible to get rural letters delivered on the main road to people living off these roads, and pretty extensive districts distributed by means of motor bicycles. Now, that is only one of the proposals which we are considering, but to introduce motor cycles at this stage would mean the disemployment of three or four thousand men. I think you will agree that this is not the time to disemploy men. At any time it would not be popular. It will be unfortunate, but if we cannot find any better substitute, I am afraid that eventually we will have to reduce the rural post and introduce the methods I have suggested. Before any such change is brought about the Dáil will have an opportunity of discussing it. Deputy Figgis is under the impression that a reduction of the postal rates would mean an increase of revenue. I felt inclined to take the same view some months ago, but as a result of investigations on the other side, in England, I have discovered that, as a matter of fact, the English anticipations of an increase of revenue, or even a substantial decrease, have not materialised. Their anticipations have worked out in the other direction, and the increase which they did anticipate has not materialised. Well, if it does not materialise in a commercial community like England, I think we would hardly be justified in taking the view that we could follow that line here. We have, on the other hand, reduced the penny letter rate to one halfpenny, because we feel that the former rate weighed very heavily on manufacturers and business people, and I understand that the business community feel that this reduction has somewhat brought about an expansion of their business already. Now, on the question of the 1¼ million loss, it is an item which, I think, this Dáil cannot afford to brush aside lightly. It is a very big item. If a similar item were applied, say, to several other Departments of State, well, the taxpayer would show his teeth rather quickly. For instance, supposing this Government were to try further experiments in commercial control, and that these further experiments resulted as the Post Office has resulted, I wonder what would become of the revenue of the country. How long would the country tolerate it? I do not think for very long. We feel that the country will not continue to tolerate this heavy drain in the running of the Post Office. I personally believe that the country would be well advised not to tolerate it too long, or at any rate that the country would be justified in demanding from those in control of the Post Office an explanation as to the possibility of reducing that deficit with a view ultimately to wiping it away altogether. Now, in view of that feeling, which undoubtedly does exist, we have taken the precaution of setting up a very capable Finance Sub-Committee, and I am sure that within the next six months or so we will have thoroughly probed the whole edifice as handed over to us, and we will be able to give judgment as to how that can be made right. Deputy Figgis commends us for our judgment in not introducing the system of broadcasting. The public have been rather impatient at our apparent slowness in this matter. The Americans rushed in without consideration. They permitted several systems of broadcasting to be introduced, and now we find that each and all of these systems have to be scrapped, and the Government intends, I believe, to take broadcasting under its own direction. We cannot afford to try an experiment of this kind which stronger and longer established countries, and countries in a better position to spend money in experiments, have not taken up. The burning of the old Post Office in 1916, and the burning of O'Connell Street, which was the headquarters of our Executive Department, and the subsequent burning of the Rink, have all combined to make administration in the Post Office very difficult. I expect that those who perpetrated the latter burning had that in view. One will readily understand that after the destruction of these buildings specially devised for the headquarters work of so big a Department, that a good deal of dislocation must necessarily follow, and a good deal of dislocation has followed, and at the moment we are getting it hard from the commercial community, particularly in Dublin, because of our failure to meet their requirements with expedition. Well, the fault is not ours, and I would impress on this Dáil, seeing that the Dáil as a whole will be responsible for the administration of the Post Office in the future, that it should not lose sight of the imperative necessity of immediately getting to work in setting up a proper headquarters for the Post Office administration. As long as the business of this Post Office, which employs in Dublin some 4,000 or 5,000 people, is diverted to back lanes and alleys and stores and railway carriages, you cannot do the public business properly, and the public must suffer and the public are suffering. I intend in the immediate future to make a proposal to the Cabinet which would involve, if accepted, the rebuilding of the old Post Office. I am rather disappointed that Labour agrees that an urgent matter of this kind should be deferred. I do not think that they knew the circumstances when they nodded approval to the President's proposal to-day, but I wish to make it clear that it cannot be deferred and it must be dealt with; otherwise you will find that the commercial community and the working community, too, will suffer very seriously. I may say, in connection with the old Post Office, that a claim for a million pounds has been lodged with the British Government, and though that claim has not or may not be considered by the Shaw Commission, it is not definitely ruled out, and neither should it be. Deputy O'Shannon refers to the transferees from England. As a matter of fact we have brought very few officials from the other side. On the other hand we have sent quite a number across. A great number of Englishmen were employed here, and a good many have gone and a good many more are going, but we have had to accept our quota from the other side to balance that number and we are accepting them, and I may say in every case the men coming to this side are Irishmen, or men of Irish descent, and the most capable men in the Department. At any rate, in a few departments, particularly in the Engineering, materials from the English Service were indispensable. When discussing the transfer of staff from England, of course, the North-east is included, because the North-east is under British administration. Deputy Davin points to the loss on telegrams, and incidentally mentions that that loss is rather due to the preferential treatment of Press telegrams. Well, I should say that it is. Preferential treatment is given to Press telegrams, and this subject was discussed in the English House of Commons a few years ago, and very warmly debated, but possibly because of the influence of the Press the preference continued, and there it is.

Subsidising the Press.

If this Dáil should face the music and make the Press pay the full quota for the transmission of its news, then I am prepared to be the medium, if I should be the man in the position at the time, but it will not be a very popular thing, I assure you.

Not with the Press.

On the other hand, it might not be quite necessary to make a departure in the charges for Press telegrams, because we are introducing what is known as the Baudot System of telegraphy, and in this way the manipulation practically entirely disappears; it resolves itself into a mechanical operation altogether. This Baudot System is particularly suitable for Press purposes, and then the only charge with which we are concerned would be the cross-channel wires and their maintenance. A number of sub-offices, as Deputy Gaffney has rightly stated, have been swept off during the last 4 or 5 years, I think rightly so, in a good many cases. The British Government through one form of pressure or another were rather extravagant in their attentions in this matter, which seems a strange thing to say, but it is a position which did exist, nevertheless, and sub-offices were opened in districts which did not justify or did not actually need them. Offices have been shut down or are being and will be shut down, and I may say that quite recently a Deputy suggested to me that a certain sub-office should be opened—well, sub-offices cost money and the nation is going to pay this money. I made enquiries as to the output of this particular institution and I found that its receipts amounted to the gross total of 17s. 6d. in the last week of its operation. I do not suppose that 17s. 6d. would justify us in reopening it and we have no intention of opening some of these defunct offices.

I want to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware in some cases why these sub-offices were closed. It was because the British could not get men in that particular area to go out to fight in the European war, and that, in at least one or two cases, they gave such a reason for the closing of sub-Post Offices.

Well, if there is any such feeling in the mind of the Deputy or any other Deputy that such action was taken, naturally we will immediately have the circumstances investigated. We do not mind how many communications are sent to us in respect of grievances. We are only too pleased to handle them. It is only by rubbing in the grievances and by making them clear that the service can progress and that we can make it anything like perfect.

With regard to the Postmaster-General's statements as to the small sum taken in one Post Office, perhaps I may know that particular office and, if so, it was because the people who had it became rather unpopular, for the same reason as it advanced in the case of men who could not be got in that area to go to fight.

Well, perhaps Deputy Gaffney would let me have the name of the Post Office and I would enquire into it. He is right in saying that there has been a certain laxity in the delivery of telegrams, and that laxity is a rather serious thing for the public. Only last night, for instance, I met a man here who had come all the way from Mayo, and his journey could have been avoided if a telegram had been delivered to him in the normal way, but the people in the particular office concerned simply regarded it as an object that might be attended to when circumstances were convenient and failed to treat it as a telegram, with the result that this business man was very seriously inconvenienced. It is a very serious thing for the business of the country to find laxity, particularly in the Telegraphic Service, and also, to some extent, in the Telephonic Service. We realise that fact. This laxity is due to indiscipline, to lack of discipline, which cropped up in the service during the last four or five years through the practical breakdown of English administration, and this indiscipline, we feel justified in the interests of the Irish people, we must eradicate. We are eradicating it and coping with it in every possible case, and punishing officials who fail to do their duty with a reasonable amount of satisfaction. Deputy Alton referred to the introduction of the automatic exchange system. We realise very fully the advantage of the automatic service and also the disadvantage of the existing one, but you require a highly qualified engineering staff, for one thing, to engage in its introduction; and, further, you require a very considerable Vote from the Treasury —a Vote which we have not, but which we have a hope to get in the future. Undoubtedly automatic service is the better one for a progressive country, and all progressive countries have come to that conclusion, judging by its extension. We also intend, and have a scheme in course of formation to develop the rapid extension of the telephone service to the rural districts, and in this connection we intend, if there is no serious objection from the owners, to utilise trees instead of poles, and to utilise the single wire instead of the return; and, in addition, to adopt what is called the "multiplex" system, whereby a number of houses are switched on to one wire, and, by introducing this, we believe we can introduce cheap telephony everywhere. It will possibly take a few years to get going. We have to make good the wreckage of the past six months, but it should be the policy of the Post Office to extend the use of telephones, and cheap ones at that, and Deputy Johnson was right when he calculated that we had that in mind. A few of the Labour Deputies referred to what they considered victimisation. Now, I think there have been very few strikes on record which have carried less victimisation, probably, than the Post Office strike, as a matter of fact, notwithstanding very grave breaches of the law which, if taken to their usual conclusion would have meant more serious punishment than dismissal. Many of these have been investigated and are known to us, but not a single official has even been dismissed because of it. Not a single official, I wish to repeat, has been dismissed because of participation in this business. But we have got a large number of casual workers. These casual workers, as the Labour Deputies know pretty well, clearly understand that their employment is from day to day. We are not in any way bound to continue their services a day longer than we require them, and just now we find we do not require many of them; and because of that fact, these casual labourers attribute the dispensing of their services to the fact that they had some connection with the strike. In other words, because they were on strike we must retain their services for fear it would be said they were dispensed with because of participation in the strike. That will not work. In the ordinary way their services would be dispensed with at this time of the year or early in the new year, when the work does not justify their employment, and that will happen now no matter what cause it is attributed to.

Would the Postmaster-General say whether he has taken on other temporary men who have not been working in the Post Office before the strike?

I have taken on temporary hands that came to the rescue of the service during the strike, and I intend to retain them. Now, it is true that there was one promotion in the service of a very unusual character. That was the promotion of Mr. Hogan. It was Mr. Hogan who took charge of the Rink during the period of the strike, and certainly acquitted himself with the utmost satisfaction. Not only did he do herculean work during that time in the distribution and division and direction of the mail services, but he controlled a staff of 70 men. He was the senior man. There was no other Supervisor on the floor, and in view of that, I was justified in appointing Mr. Hogan in the capacity of Assistant Superintendent, and I have no apology to make for that. I think Mr. Hogan deserved promotion from the Government which he stood by, and I may say, apart from that consideration, he is a thoroughly capable and efficient officer. It is not true that Mr. Hogan passed over the heads of 94 men. He did actually pass over them, but it is also true that these 94 men had already been frequently passed over in the past. There is only one other point, and that relates to Mr. Art McGann, taken on in May or June—I am not sure which—in the capacity of Clerical Officer in the Engineering Department. Mr. McGann, with four or five other sorting clerks and telegraphists in the Belfast Post Office came here to Dublin and approached me with a story that, because of the pogroms in Belfast they had to clear out, as their lives were unsafe.

May I appeal to the Postmaster-General not to deal with this case in public, because I did not mention names. If the case is as represented to me it will prejudice that man's position in the future. I only represented it in general terms and asked that it should be specially considered, and I think it is unfair to deal with the case of an individual by name in the circumstances.

Well, had I known that Deputy Johnson's desire was that the matter should be dealt with otherwise than in public I would have respected his views, and if he wishes to be placed in possession of all the evidence bearing on this case I would be pleased to place the material at his disposal. There is only just one other matter; the Secretary of the Post Office has promulgated no new idea in giving evidence before the Commission when he states that it is the business of the Post Office to run the Post Office as a business concern. I do, however, rather hold aloof from sharing the view that the Post Office should be run as a profit-making concern. Let it be clearly understood that I believe that the Post Office should clear its way, but I do not feel that I would be justified in advancing the idea that the Post Office should be run as a profit-making institution. At the same time both the Secretary of the Post Office and myself feel, and plenty will agree that we were bound to be frank in our views regarding the running of this department. Our conduct in this matter will be taken, I venture to say, as a criterion as to the attitude of the Government generally in any commercial enterprises in which it should engage. And we feel, being responsible for the only enterprise of the kind under the control of the Government at the moment that we are bound to set forth those ideas of management which we consider just and proper in the interests of the community. I feel myself, and I think I am correctly speaking for the Secretary, that I would not be justified in paying one single penny extra wages to an employee of the Post Office that I myself would not pay were I the owner of the Post Office as a private enterprise. Nor would I be prepared, without feeling that I was doing injustice to the community being called upon to deal with their money, generally speaking, to give concessions to employees under the Government that I would not give were I the owner of the institution. That is a fair position. I feel I should not exploit to the extent of one penny the public money in anything in which I would not be prepared to risk my own. I know that is contrary to the views of the Labour Party, but I know that I am perfectly justified in stating that view point.

Motion made and question put: "That the Dáil in Committee, having considered the Estimates for the Post Office in 1922-23, and having passed a Vote on Account of £1,921,730 for the period to the 6th December, 1922, recommend that the full Estimate of £2,756,337 for the Financial Year, 1922-23, be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas."

Agreed.

Top
Share