Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jan 1924

Vol. 6 No. 5

RECOMMENDATIONS OF POST OFFICE COMMISSION.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I beg to move the motion standing in my name:—

That the Dáil disapproves of the decision of the Postmaster-General in respect of the recommendations of the Post Office Commission.

In order that Deputies may be in a position to judge of the merits of this motion, it will be necessary to outline very briefly the history of the Postal Commission, and the position generally in the Post Office during the last few years. In the closing years of the British regime there was very much discontent amongst Post Office staffs in this country. Things were very un settled in the Post Office. This state of affairs arose from many causes. There was much discontent in the matter of promotion. There was no outlet for the promotion of the staffs. Complaints were made from time to time as to favouritism, but probably the main cause of the discontent was the low basic rate of pay.

In the other branches of the Civil Service various re-organisations have taken place from time to time. I think the last re-organisation took place somewhere about 1920, whereby men in what was formerly the old Second Division had their positions substantially bettered, and those who are now clerical officers were up-graded and received substantial increases. No re-organisation, however, has taken place in the Post Office. It was given in evidence before the Postal Commission that men sorters and telegraphists in Dublin had their basic rates increased only by the amount of 5/- per week within the 30 years prior to the taking over of the Government by the Irish Administration. Shortly after the Provisional Government had taken over the Post Office —I think it was in March, 1922—the first cut under the Civil Service bonus arrangement was due to take place, and the Post Office authorities proposed to apply this cut automatically to the postal servants. There was trouble immediately. It was argued that as the basic rates were low the bonus was proportionately low and, in fact, that the staffs were not in a position to bear this cut which it was proposed to make. Trouble was averted at that time by the action of the Government in promising to set up, and in actually setting up, a Commission.

The terms of reference to the Commission were as follows. I shall read the pertinent portions only:—

That an independent Commission of five members be set up to inquire into the wages and salaries, organisation of work, and conditions generally in the Post Office, and to report what alterations, if any, are desirable.

That in the cases of the principal classes of Post Office servants, and of such of the other classes as the Commission may think necessary, the first task of the Commission shall be to determine whether the present basic wage can bear the recent cut, this to be determined by the 15th May, 1922.

That the Commission shall be empowered to recommend in the case of classes, where the cut is regarded as not being justified, an increase of basic wage as from the 1st March, without prejudice to the general findings.

That the Commission shall then consider the general question of wages, salaries, organisation of work and conditions generally.

Mr. Douglas, now Senator Douglas, was appointed by the Government to act as Chairman of the Commission. The Government nominated two others, Mr. Henry Friel, who is now Secretary of the Home Affairs Department, and Sir Thomas Esmonde, now Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde. The Irish Labour Party, as part of the agreement, was asked to nominate two members, and they nominated Mr. O'Duffy, who is now Chairman of the Labour Party, and myself. That was the Commission. Its duty was to examine and report before the 15th May, 1922, whether or not, in all the circumstances, the main classes of the Post Office staffs, that is, those known as the sorting clerks and telegraphists, the postmen, and the engineering branch, were able to bear the cut which was proposed.

To put the matter briefly, the Commission did report before the 15th May, 1922. They furnished a unanimous report to the Government to the effect that, in view of all the circumstances, this cut which was proposed was not justified, and they, therefore, recommended that the basic rate of these classes should be increased by, roughly, 12½ per cent, which approximately left their position what it was before the cut had taken place. That recommendation was to hold good until the final report of the Commission, or until an agreed cost of living figure for the Irish Free State had been determined.

It was the intention of the Postal Commission, immediately after making that interim report in May, 1922, to go into the whole question of the re-organisation of the Post Office, and generally to carry on the main part of the work for which they were appointed. The general election intervened, and after that came the trouble which broke out in the summer of 1922. For one reason or another the Post Office was not in a position, nor was the Postal Commission, to carry on its work. Meantime, about the end of August, 1922, a cost-of-living figure was published by the Government. It had no claim to fulfil the condition of being called an agreed cost-of-living figure, because the Commission had in mind a figure which would be generally accepted by labour people, and also by representatives of commerce, as a proper figure under the circumstances. Apart from that, we know what happened immediately afterwards. A strike was called in the Post Office, because the officials held that the previous interim report should hold good until the final report was produced, or until an agreed cost-of-living figure was arrived at. The Post Office authorities, however, proposed, and actually did take off not only the 12½ per cent. which had been given in the interim report, but also made an additional cut—at the moment I forget the exact amount—of, I think, 5.26 of the bonus. All was to come off on the 1st of September. That, as I say, led up to the Post Office strike, which went on for five or six weeks. Eventually the strike was settled. One of the factors that induced the staffs at that time to call off the strike was a promise given by the Chairman of the Postal Commission, to the effect that if they went back to work the Postal Commission would meet and take up as quickly as possible the consideration of the whole wage question. I do not say that that was the condition on which they went back, but it was a factor which influenced them very considerably in coming to the decision to accept the Government's conditions. They went back in October, and on the 1st of November the Postal Commission sat again. Recognising the urgency of the whole question, the Commission got on with the work as quickly as possible, and as a result were able to issue the first part of their report on the 14th of December, 1922.

I want to call attention to the fact that the Commission considered this matter of the wage question of the postal staffs so very urgent that they thought it advisable to issue their report in two parts, dealing in the first instance with the position of the staffs, so that it would settle the question of re-organisation and wages generally. This is the paragraph in their report which illustrates that point:—

"In view of the fact that several months must elapse before the Commission can hope to report fully, and of the many and intricate problems submitted to it, and having regard to the admitted need for the early re-organisation of the main classes in the Post Office, the Commission have decided to issue forthwith this first part of the report dealing with the question of re-organisation, as far as it affects the larger sections of the employees and other kindred matters on which definite conclusions have been reached."

That shows that in the mind of the Postal Commission this was a matter of very great urgency. The Commission, on examining this whole question, found themselves faced with a very great difficulty and a very big problem. The Post Office, as a whole, was being run at a loss, and the Commission felt that any recommendation which would have the effect of increasing expenditure would not stand any chance of being accepted. At the same time, they recognised that, unless there were better prospects held out to the staffs, the report would not be very effective in the way of relieving or alleviating the discontent which undoubtedly and admittedly existed in the Post Office. They were faced, therefore, with the task of reconciling what looked like two decidedly conflicting interests. They were not long engaged in the consideration of the problem when they found out that one of the things that led to discontent in the Post Office was the remarkable fact that, owing to the limited number of positions that were available for people in this country, there were going into the Post Office for years a class of men who, as a matter of fact were too good for the work they were doing, and who felt that they were able to do better work and entitled, as it were, to do better work.

In this connection we had some remarkable evidence from the Secretary of the Post Office. In the course of his evidence he stated:—

"The trouble in the Post Office had been that, in Ireland, there are not sufficient jobs for the people, and witnessed his own case. He had been an Intermediate exhibitioner, left school at 15, and went in for the Post Office because there was no place else to go. If he had been left in the ruck, he himself would have been an agitator. Some of the men in the Post Office were too good for their positions."

Another quotation is as follows:—

"Witness (the Secretary) stated that there were approximately 14,000 workers in the Post Office. That administration, to be successful, must have a contented staff to deal with, and it was desirable to take all steps necessary to produce harmony in the Department. Witness admitted that the staff was not contented, and gave as an explanation, as he had already stated in his previous evidence, that there had been no jobs for the people. Men who had to go into the Post Office found themselves doing lower work than they were able to do, and were naturally discontented because they did not get the salaries which they believed their abilities entitled them to."

Mr. G. NICHOLS

took the chair at this stage.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That was the problem which faced the Commission. They gave long and careful consideration to all these problems and view-points. They examined numerous witnesses from the Department and also from the staff side, and they believed that they found a solution, with the result that a unanimous Report was again issued, and I would like to call attention, at this stage, to the fact that those who were now acting on the Commission were not the original Commissioners. Mr. Friel had been appointed to the position of Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Sir Thos. Esmonde was not in a position to act, so that the Government nominated Councillor Jas Moran, the present Senator Moran, Chairman of the Port and Docks Board, and Mr. O'Connor, the well-known accountant and lecturer on Accountancy in the National University. I think the fact in itself that a unanimous Report was issued where you had men with what might be called such opposite view-points as Senator Moran and Mr. O'Duffy, not to mention others, goes far to show that it was a Report such as the Government might very well have adopted. I may say, too, that a suggestion came from a particular witness from the Department, that there should be a re-grading, that the work which was now being done by the Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists should in future be done by postmen and that that particular grade should do a higher class of work. I should say that the wages paid in the Dublin office are higher than in any other office in the country. It is what is known as a Class 1 office, and there are Class 2 and Class 3 offices where proportionately lower rates of wages are paid. A Sorting Clerk and Telegraphist at his maximum was getting 61s. a week as his basic rate of pay. A postman was getting 39/- or 40/-. The idea of the Commission was that the work which was now being done for 61/- could be done by the postmen, and that certain classes of the postmen who might be found fitted for the work should have their maximum increased to 52/-. The postmen would be getting an increase and at the same time the Post Office would be getting work done at a cheaper rate. In the same way it was recommended that the work now done by what are called Clerical Officers, and for whom a maximum basic rate of £237 10s. is paid, could be done by men promoted from the Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists' Department, and for that those who are getting a maximum of 61/- a week, or, roughly, £159 a year, should have an increase of £60 per annum, which would only bring them up to £220. Again the Sorting Clerk was getting a substantial increase of £60, but his maximum was £17 10s. Od. less than the maximum of the man whom he was replacing. The Commission believed that in this way they were meeting the claims of the men for a better prospect, a better outlook and promotion, while at the same time they were not, they held, increasing the total expenditure of the Post Office.

There could be no question as to the ability of Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists to do the work which the Commission recommended that they should do; indeed, it was admitted by the Secretary in the course of his evidence. He said, referring to what are called the Clerical Class in the Post Office: "Witness stated that there was a need in the Post Office for a Clerical Class, but he did not state that that must necessarily be a Treasury Class. He did not think that Treasury Classes as such were advisable in the Post Office. The Clerical Classes which he regarded as essential could be had from the ranks of the Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists, and by means of open competition." There is an admission that these men were quite qualified to do the work in the higher departments of the Post Office which is now being done by what is called Treasury Classes, who are men who have not worked their way up within the Post Office, but who were appointed directly to the higher administrative offices, and whose maximum basic salary is £237 10s. The Government's decision, announced by the Postmaster-General just before Christmas, in brief accepts the view that there should be a re-grading, that the men should be graded up, as it were, to the higher class of work They accept that part of it, but they do not accept the other side of the bargain. They do not believe in paying for that more important work, except to a very slight extent indeed. It will be necessary to refer in detail to the Government's report, and I shall take first the case of the postmen. "The Commission recommends that the maximum basic wages of Grade B. postmen at Class I offices be increased by 3/-, to 43/- a week." I should first say that the Commission recommended that postmen should be graded into two classes, A and B; that the B postmen should continue to do the work which postmen do at present, and that Grade A, the new Grade of postmen, should take over the work now being done by Sorting Clerks. The Commission, it says, recommends that in Class 1 offices, that is in the Dublin office only, the increase of the lower Grade of postmen should be 3/- per week, from 40/- to 43/-. I would like to explain the point of view which the Commission held in making that recommendation, because it might be argued that in this case no higher work was given to these men. It was not so much an increase that was the idea as an adjustment of scale. The present scale and the scale recommended by the Commission goes up from 20/- at the age of 18 to 29/-, by yearly increments of 1/6 per week. Then there are, in the existing scales, increments of 2/- a week for two years, to 33/-, and then they drop back again to the 1/6 rate, and towards the end, they have an increment of 1/- a week. The Commission thought it would have been much simpler, from the point of view of administration alone, if it were nothing else, that after the 29/- a week figure was reached, the increments for the same number of years should be at the rate of 2/- a week, which meant an ultimate increase on the maximum of 3/- a week. The Commission did not think that 43/- a week as a basic wage was too much to offer the postman in Dublin who would have, I think, 14 or 15 years' service. He would be, roughly, somewhere about the age of 31 or 32 years, even if he entered at the age of 18, but let this be remembered in this connection, that if a man enters even at the age of 30, he has to work up his yearly increments for 13 or 14 years.

He does not automatically fit into his age scale. He has to begin right at the beginning, and work up. As I say, they do not consider that that wage was too much to offer postmen who have responsibilities. These men have to carry around registered letters, and are dealing with considerable sums of money at times, and especially in view of the fact of the introduction of this new cash-on-delivery system, which the Commission certainly had in mind would be introduced, but we read that "The Government has given this recommendation very careful consideration, and it is unable to accept it. It is satisfied, after a perusal of the evidence, that the existing basic scales are fully adequate for the work at present performed by the existing grades. Where, therefore, work is not graded as higher work, the Government is unable to accept a recommendation to increase the present wage." In other words, the 3/- increase for postmen is turned down now. In the case of Grade A. postmen, these are to do the work which is now being done by sorters, and for which a maximum wage of 61/ per week is paid. The Commission recommended that where postmen are turned on to that work they should get an immediate increase of 3/6 per week in case the wages are under 29/-, and 5/- per week in the case of people paid a higher wage, and further, that there should be two additional increments. That would bring the maximum after some 16 or 18 years' service to 52/- per week, as against the 61/- paid at the moment for the same kind of work. The decision of the Government as announced is as follows:—"The Commission recommends that postmen, Grade `A,' performing sorting and despatching work, shall have a maximum of 52/- per week, plus bonus. The maximum suggested is too high, and the Government is unable to accept it. It proposes, instead, to adopt a maximum of 48/-, plus bonus, a week for Class 1 Offices, the scale being the present scale, rising by increments of 1/6 per week from the present wages point to 39/-, plus bonus, per week to the new maximum of 48/-, plus bonus, per week." That refers to Class 1 Offices, the scale being pro rata in the other offices. That 4/- is not exactly the difference, but it is what happened immediately. Nobody gets an increase in the first case until he goes to his maximum. The Commission recommended that any man, no matter at what point he was in the scale, who was given this higher class of work should have an immediate increase of 3/6. The position now is that a man, whether of the higher or lower work, gets the same wage until he goes to the maximum of the present scale, and then he gets an increase of 1/6, and his incremental period is lengthened by five years, so that even if he enters at the minimum age of 18 he has to work until he is 36 before he gets his maximum of 48/-. That is how the Government have dealt with the case of these new men who are to be put on to the higher class of work. They have done nothing at the moment to distinguish the two classes of work until the sorter comes to a certain period in his career. Then they say: "You can go a little further by increments of 1/6 per week." Take the case of a postman who might enter at the age of 20 or 25. He has to work 18 years before he gets his maximum of 48/-.

With regard to the class called sorting clerks and telegraphists, the Commission has recommended that there should be a new class altogether, and they should do a different and higher class of work than they are doing at the present time. This recommendation is practically turned down altogether. The recommendation of the Commission was as follows:—"The Commission recommends that the class at present known as sorting clerks and telegraphists should in future be known as post office assistants, who should perform all duties now discharged by the sorting clerks and telegraphists, except those recommended for transfer to postmen." And in addition they "should undertake all Post Office clerical work except that discharged by Executive grade." Then they recommended that the salary for that class should go to a maximum of £220, as against the £160 at present, but that they should do the work which is now being done by men paid up to £237 10s. The Government, however, decided otherwise. They say: "With regard to wages, the Commission recommends that Post Office assistants should go to a maximum of £162 10s., plus bonus, for males, and £110 for females, except in the case of assistants who shall have passed an efficiency test to be arranged by the Department, with a view to proving their ability to discharge the highest clerical duties proper to the grade, who should go to £220 in the case of males, and £155 in the case of females." They further say: "The latter recommendation, which involves the payment of a State servant not by reference to the work on which he is employed, but by reference to the work which he is able to discharge, is one which the Government cannot possibly entertain." I do not know how far the Government are justified in taking that interpretation from that recommendation. So far as I know, speaking as a member of the Commission, the intention was that all vacancies in the clerical grade should be open to men who would have reached the point where the efficiency bar was to be if they were qualified to do the work. It was not the intention—I am speaking for myself—that unless they were doing the work the salary would be paid. I would certainly say that the Government were wrong in thinking that that was the only interpretation that could be put upon that recommendation. Here is a rather surprising statement coming from the Government, especially in view of the evidence put forward by the Department: "Nor can the Government accept the proposal that the work at Headquarter Offices should be performed by the manipulative classes, though the Government is prepared to provide a special avenue of promotion for these classes."

Now this word "manipulative" is put in very deliberately to give a wrong impression. These men—sorting clerks and telegraphists—were doing work and are doing work which cannot be properly termed "manipulative." They are doing more than purely sorting work, and the recommendation of the Commission was that purely manipulative work would be done in future by the postman, and it is asserted now on the part of the Government that these men are not qualified in spite of the evidence put up by their own Department that they were fully qualified to do the work in the clerical offices. Now, the wage which was recommended was not agreed upon or accepted by the Government. They are re-grading these men and they slightly increased the maximum from 61/- to 70/- for men who are to do the higher duties; the others are to remain as they are. In Dublin, even in the case of these men whose maximums are increased, the immediate increase will be 2/- a week, and their incremental period, which is already an extraordinarily long one, is lengthened out by five years more. Now, the number of people who can possibly benefit by this scheme, suggested by the Post Office, is extremely limited. If we take it that there are approximately 420 or 430 sorting clerks and telegraphists the number likely to benefit under this scheme is not more than one-third, and the others will be left where they are in spite of the admitted fact that they are qualified and able to do the higher class of work. There are other recommendations in this report which have not been touched at all. One particular recommendation was that in which the Commission suggested that some machinery should be set up within the Post Office for the adjustment of differences, or rather for the discussion and adjustment of any question which might arise and be likely to lead to friction if not settled. The report is quite silent upon that recommendation.

I would like to impress upon the Dáil the unwisdom on the part of the Government or of Ministers in setting up a Commission of this kind, and then practically altogether disregarding its recommendations. But I think there would be very little use for me to dilate upon that aspect of the question when we are all getting so used to it. With our present Government that seems rather to be the rule rather than the exception. A Commission report and that is all we hear of it; the Government accepts it if it seems to fit in with their own particular point of view, and if it does not they do not give the matter much further consideration. There are some other aspects of this report that I would like to deal with and call to the attention of the Dáil. There is first, the unreasonable, and very great and unwarranted delay on the part of whoever is responsible in issuing the decision come to on this report. As I pointed out in the beginning of my statement, when the Commission was appointed it was thought it implied something in the nature of a promise, not a formal promise, but something in the nature of a promise by way of inducement, to have the trouble caused by the strike settled, and that the Commission would set to work at once. The Commission did set to work at once, and they thought the matter was so very urgent that they determined to issue a report upon this particular phase of the question alone before they went into the whole matter of the re-organisation within the Post Office. That report was presented on the 14th December, 1922, and exactly on the 14th December, 1923, we have this report dated and issued by the Postmaster-General.

Now, I think it is due to the Dáil that some explanation should be given as to the reason for that altogether unwarranted delay in dealing with this very urgent matter. But there is another matter, and it is a matter of very great importance indeed, and raises, to my mind, a question of Constitutional practice. The Postmaster-General is an External Minister, and the Postmaster-General, as such, is responsible directly to this House, and the House is entitled to know whether this is or is not the decision of the Postmaster-General or of the Government as a whole. Questions put to the Postmaster-General during the year as to what was being done with the report drew forth very remarkable answers in this connection. I have not the exact quotations before me at the moment, but I distinctly remember on one occasion the Postmaster-General in answering a question as to when the report might be issued saying "it was being considered by the Executive and that, in future, questions on that matter should be addressed to the Minister for Finance." If that is the position, then it is a position upon which this House is entitled to have a very clear and straightforward statement. I hold that if the Postmaster-General, as an External Minister, is to carry out the intentions of the Constitution, his decision should be reported to this House, and not to the Executive. He is responsible to this House in the first instance. It is, of course, open to this House to accept or reject the decision of the Postmaster-General, and it is also open to the Executive Government or to the Minister for Finance, if, for instance, it is a matter of expenditure that is involved, when the report is being considered, to say whether he, as Minister for Finance, is prepared to give the money that is necessary to carry out the requirements of the recommendations.

That would be a perfectly constitutional position for the Minister for Finance to take up, but that point of view should be put before the Dáil, and it should be for the Dáil to decide whether or not the Minister for Finance was making a good case; but my contention is that the report should come direct to the Dáil, in the first place, and that the Dáil should be the first to make a decision on it. Instead of that, we have really and, in fact, no report at all made to the Dáil. What I mean is that the Dáil was not given a chance to come to any decision on the matter. If some member did not think it right to move a motion of this kind, then we would have no decision at all. Surely it cannot be argued, as it was attempted to be argued on a previous occasion, that the Dáil is now given a chance of expressing its point of view on this particular recommendation or report. That argument was used on a previous occasion when we were discussing another matter which was brought up for discussion and decision by a private member. This was simply read out as a report to the Dáil, a report of a decision of the Government apparently. It is signed certainly by the Postmaster-General, but I hold it was the duty of the Postmaster-General to come to the Dáil and say: "I have made such and such a decision on the recommendation of the Postal Commission, and I now put it before the Dáil to approve of it or reject it." I hold that that was the constitutional position, and I think we should know from the Postmaster-General, or from the Government, why that position has been departed from, as apparently it has been departed from in connection with this report. I formally move the motion in my name.

Mr. MURPHY

I second.

POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J.J. Walsh)

I must, at the outset, express my appreciation of the very fair and impartial presentation of this case by the proposer of the motion. Knowing the case as I do, I have no hesitation in saying that there has been no exaggeration on his part. It is true he has undoubtedly endeavoured to add a certain weight to the view-point held by the sorting clerks and telegraphists, affected by this recommendation, but, on the whole, as I have said, his presentation of the position has been fair and just. Now, it may be necessary for the Dáil, at this stage, to get a short indication of the various steps taken prior to—that is to say, during the time of the interim report and subsequent to that interim report—the time of the production of the main report which is now before the Dáil. I mention that just for the guidance of members. A Commission was appointed by the Government on the 5th March, 1922. Four public sittings were held during the month of April, and an interim report was furnished to the Government on the 11th May, 1922. The report was accepted by the Government on the 3rd June, 1922. At this stage, and because of a difference of interpretation between the official of the Post Office and the Government, that very regrettable incident in the life of the Post Office ensued—the strike that has been referred to. Immediately after the settlement of that strike a re-organised Commission got to work. Its sittings were resumed on the 31st October, 1922. Ten public sittings, and fourteen private meetings were held between the 31st October and the 13th December of that year. A report, with recommendations, was furnished to the Government on the 14th December, 1922, and the Government's decisions on these recommendations were submitted to the Oireachtas on the 13th December, 1923. I will admit, at the outset, that the delay of twelve months would appear unreasonable, and I regret personally that this delay occurred, but one must remember that the country was, in the interval, passing through a very critical period when the time and attention of the then Minister for Finance was very fully occupied indeed.

I think that would be a reasonable explanation, or at least in part, an explanation for the unavoidable delay in the production of this report or of its findings. As a further preliminary to our discussions, and in order that the various complications not easily understood by the layman may perhaps have some light thrown on them, I might say that there were only two main classes in the original report. These were the Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists and Postmen engaged in head and salaried offices. There are several other classes in the Post Office, and these we had intended to consider in the second part of the report. When that second stage will be reached I cannot say. It is, I presume, a matter between the Commission and the Government itself. At any rate only two of the many classes are considered in the report with which we are now dealing. The following classes have yet to be considered in case the Commission should sit again: Engineering, Supervising, Telephones, Auxiliary and Rural Postmen, Postmasters, Sub-Postmasters, Stores, Cleaners and Labourers. For the further simplification of this matter, and that we may be spared the covering of multifarious terms and figures, I propose to speak of the two main classes, and these are, Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists and Postmen, only in their relation to Class A. There are three classes involved in these two big Departments or grades. Class A applies to Dublin only. Class B includes such large offices as Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Are they not called Class 1 and 2 and not Class A and B?

Mr. WALSH

They are sometimes called 1, 2, 3 and sometimes Class A, B, C, but if the Deputy desires we will call them by their numerical prefix. Class 2, as I said, includes such offices as Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. Class 3 takes in the smaller head offices and the salaried sub-offices. Now, Class 2 receives either in the case of the Postmen, Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists a lower proportionate wage than Class 1, and Class 3 received a still lower proportionate wage than Class 2. Therefore, when we deal with figures as we find them before the Commission and with the Commission's figures, and with the ultimate findings of the Government we propose to bear in mind the fact that Classes 2 and 3 are in all cases proportionately lower than Class 1. One would be inclined to infer from the statements made by Deputy O'Connell that this particular Commission had functions other than to inquire into and report as to whether any alterations were desirable in the conditions of those particular classes. One would, in fact, be inclined to believe that this Commission had all the powers and duties of an arbitration committee.

Mr. O'CONNELL

On a point of explanation, I do not think I said anything that would lead the Postmaster-General to that conclusion. If I did I certainly did not intend it. I did not believe for a moment that the Commission was appointed as an arbitration board, or that the Government was bound to accept its findings. But I say it was unwise on the part of the Government not to have accepted its findings.

Mr. WALSH

At any rate it will be understood that this Commission had precisely the same powers and responsibilities as many previous Commissions which decided Post Office grievances. At least those powers and responsibilities were accepted, I presume, in that sense by the staff as well as they were accepted by us. While the Government did not see its way to approve of the entire recommendations of the Commission, I must, at once, say that their recommendations have offered channels of improvement to postal officials hitherto untouched by any Commission called upon to perform like functions. While on the Commission, it is well to refer to some of the findings of previous Commissions working with a very different balance sheet from that which has obtained in this country, and considering the very same subjects which this Commission was called upon to consider. In 1903 as a result of an agitation, not perhaps so advanced as we were faced with, but, nevertheless, an agitation based on the same sort of grievances, the British Government appointed what was known as the Bradford Commission. The Bradford Commission recommended pretty general increases, but the Government entirely repudiated its findings. At this time the British Post Office had a solid balance to its annual earning credit. In 1905 it appointed a second Commission, known as the Stanley Commission, and the net result of the British Government findings, from the standpoint of sorting clerks and telegraphists, not only in England but in this country, resulted only in an additional increment of 2/6 at the age of 25 years. Nothing whatever at the maximum. In 1908 it appointed a third Commission. This was known as the Hobhouse Commission, and, notwithstanding any recommendations made by the Hobhouse Commission, the sorting clerks and telegraphists gained not one solitary penny at their maximum. In 1914 it appointed a Holt Commission and though I cannot say off-hand what that Commission recommended in the way of increase, the ultimate result from the standpoint of the postal service was only an increase of 2/- as a maximum. At this particular stage the British Government had netted 6¼ millions of money from the Post Office during that particular year. In 1920 the Whitley Commission was appointed and the net result from the postal service point of view, speaking still of the sorting clerks and telegraphists was an increase of 3/- at the maximum. Now, all this thing goes to show that the British Government, and the British public, who have had ample time to consider whether the manipulative classes in the Post Office were in receipt of a fair and accurate wage for the work performed, came to the conclusion that they were sufficiently well paid. All these Commissions, notwithstanding the small apologies which I have recited here, apologies which apply only to the maximum, and the maximum in the Post Office at any rate is not reached for a very considerable number of years, all these apologies go to prove that there is no case whatever for the increase in the pay of the manipulative classes of the Post Office.

Since the outset of the Free State administration we have been considering whether some departure from the former allocation of postal functions was not desirable, and whether it was equitable to pay for the manipulative work of telegraphy and letter sorting on the same level as for those higher and more onerous duties involved at the counters and in the registered letter and the clerical departments. We believed the time had come when some demarcation line should be drawn, mainly because of the development of the service between those higher and more responsible functions, to which I have referred, and the lower or mechanical functions common to the sorting clerk. Likewise we had to consider whether it was really imperative to maintain the old system whereby an intelligent postman would advance to the category of sorter where there was no real justification for barring his further promotion, were he found fitted for the added responsibility.

I must confess that amongst the heads of Departments whose ideas on many other subjects were not in common, I found very common sympathy on this one idea, that the time had come for the creation of a new class within the service—in other words, the re-grading and the re-classification of the service. Had there been no strike, and had there been no agitation, I am satisfied that the Government would have accepted recommendations bearing very largely on the ones they have accepted now, had we submitted them. Re-grading and re-classification are unquestionably essential to the better administration of the department, apart altogether from the fact that they give the more able elements in the service an opportunity of showing their merit and being paid accordingly. We submitted those re-organisation and re-classification schemes to the Commission, and now it is said that the Commission's report has been rejected. One would imagine, from what one saw in the Press and official journals, that that was the case.

The Commission's report has not been rejected. It has been modified, but the modification is not altogether detrimental to the staff. For instance, the Commission recommended that clerical work in the Secretary's Office, at present performed by a definite grade common to other services, and in receipt of the maximum of £237 10s. per year, should, in future, be performed by sorting clerks and telegraphists, promoted by selection from the manipulative classes, and that their maximum should not be £237 10s., but £220. I do not intend to refer to the mode of selection for headquarters staffs in the past. It is not my affair, as it was prior to our time. We have come to the conclusion here that the best work in this headquarters department is provided by men who have been through the mill, men who have worked in the service. I think they are far more valuable instruments in the discharge of higher functions of the service than those other people who are brought in from the outside, uninitiated in the many intricacies of the postal service in general.

For that reason, and because of our decision in relation thereto, I think it could be taken for granted that in future the plums of headquarters establishments will be practically entirely, if not entirely, confined to recruits from the service itself. These recruits will not terminate at the maximum suggested by the Commission, but the higher maximum of £237 10s. If that is not a definite gain for the postal workers, beyond what the Commission anticipated, I must be making a very grave mistake indeed. There is another class of clerical duties associated with the sorting clerk and telegraphist. These duties are known in the Head Office as writing duties; and associated with these duties are such responsibilities as I referred to a while ago, which need a special type of man. That would include those on counter duties, registered letter duties, men engaged in stores, and, perhaps, one or two other sections. The Commission agreed with our view that these particular sections ought to be segregated because of their importance, but they recommended that those who should pass on to these sections ought to advance to a maximum of £220. We are not prepared to accept that view. We feel there is the responsibility lying midway, so to speak, between the manipulative and the headquarters classes, and therefore it ought to carry intermediate pay on an intermediate scale. The Commission's recommendation for these particular classes were on a par with those of the higher classes. We declined to accept that proposal, and create a new class with a maximum, not of £220, but £182 10s.

I do not think that I referred to the method of selection for the higher clerical duties, or at any rate, my reference to it might be open to misconception. What we intend to do in regard to the filling of these vacancies in the Headquarters Department, is to follow the rule operating in the present British service, which has proved to be a good one. It will be admitted generally, that men engaged in the Headquarters Department will need to be big men of outstanding ability, who come in, so to speak, at the foot of the class and work their passage up, becoming acquainted, in the meantime, with the heavy work involved in these Departments. It is our opinion that the Headquarters Department shall be recruited by competition within the service. I am not in a position to state what the age limit or the syllabus will be. It will, in the main, follow the lines laid down by our predecessors. It is a distinct gain, and I am sure it will be regarded as such by the Postal officials, who hitherto regarded these appointments as practically a closed borough. With regard to the postmen, the Government, of course, could not see its way to increase their maximum or their increments. In other words, postmen engaged in the work of delivering letters, a work which applied to them formerly, will in future continue on the same scale as has operated in the past, for the reason that the Government believes that this country cannot well afford to make a departure in salary from the same classes of work which so many Commissions investigating the matter in the past could not depart from.

There is another class of postman called upon to undertake in the future the work of sorting. The Commission recommended that this particular class should enjoy an increased maximum prior to reaching the present postmen's maximum, which is 41/- a week in Dublin, and that in addition to that variation of increment the maximum should be advanced from 41/- to 52/-. This was a rather generous anticipation on the part of the Commission, to say the least of it. There is not much difference on the whole between the work done at present by the postman, and that mechanical work of letter division and letter sorting which they are called upon to do in future. The fact that the Government accepted a maximum not of 52/- but of 48/- is, I believe, treating the proposal in a very generous spirit. I may say that this maximum and that applicable to the new class of Clerical Writers, and to the manipulative classes, were sent in by me and accepted by the Government. There is only one grievance which could possibly be advanced here, and naturally Deputy O'Connell developed it to the utmost, and that is the recommendation to the effect that the manipulative classes which continue to perform the same functions in the future as in the past should enjoy an increased maximum of something approximating to an annual increment. The proposal does not involve a great deal of money —something like £20,000—but were it accepted it would place the maximum of these men performing the same work in the future as in the past on a higher scale in this country than that in the North-East or in Britain. I do not say that was the reason why it was rejected.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will you give us the reason if that is not the reason?

Mr. WALSH

The reason is that in the opinion of the Government those classes are already sufficiently and amply paid for the class of work in which they are engaged.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is that your opinion?

Mr. WALSH

It is my opinion. I may say this: being responsible for the administration and naturally anxious for the fullest co-operation on the part of the staff—I am speaking on my own responsibility and ignoring the point of view of the Minister for Finance— that I would have been very pleased if the Minister for Finance conceded this recommendation. In that connection I stood alone in taking the view that it might ultimately benefit the service to concede the particular increment. That the Minister for Finance has found it necessary to take a different view, many people will feel that perhaps he has followed the proper course. I stood alone in thinking that it might not be a financial loss to the service to have accepted that increment, but I must necessarily, as a Minister, subordinate my views to the general good of the country, or at any rate to the financial good. When the Minister for Finance thinks that a certain line is necessary for the maintenance of a common financial policy, I must, in common with all other Ministers, cut my cloth to suit the conditions set forth by him. That is the only point of real solid grievance in this Report—this small increment applicable to a percentage of the manipulative classes. The Deputy who introduced the Motion referred to the fact that we had not taken into account what he considered to be one of the most important decisions of the Commission, namely, the appointment of an Arbitration Board to discuss differences. This matter received very careful consideration at our hands. It follows in the main on the system initiated by the British Government some time ago known as the Whitley Council. That Council, in my opinion, has brought far more trouble into the Civil Service than existed prior to its institution.

My own feeling is that an Arbitration Board—at any rate an Arbitration Board as far as the Post Office is concerned—were it introduced into our service would ultimately be subversive of control and administration. That acts on two points. I think—and it may be a regrettable fact to have to admit —that the freedom with which I extended discussions with the staff prior to the strike of 1922 was in a very large measure responsible for that strike. Had I stood aloof and refused to discuss these matters and insisted that those matters should come through the regular channel and kept the staff at arms' length, I feel that the strike would never have materialised. I am resolutely opposed to any intervention of the staff in the administration of the Department. The staff, if it likes, could bring its case here. I am sure there is no shortage of willing hands to ventilate any grievance on the assumption that my ruling is arbitrary. They can, on the other hand, after having discussed any particular phase with my subordinates, appeal to me, and my function in this respect is not that of an owner of a concern but the medium between the public and the staff, and I have no personal interest in seeing that employees should be unfairly treated. I think it will be generally conceded, as far as I am personally concerned, that I have never, here or elsewhere, said a hard thing about my employees. I must insist that the institution of an arbitration court such as this Commission recommends, is not desirable.

Mr. O'CONNELL

On a point of explanation, I may point out to the Postmaster-General that there was no such recommendation as he suggests. I will read the recommendation:—

"They, therefore, strongly urge that an attempt be made to provide machinery which will facilitate the adjustment of differences between the staff and administration. Such machinery will be valueless unless it is worked in a spirit of co-operation and any councils that may be set up to be regarded as a medium for consultation, and for constructive suggestions, and not merely for the ventilation of grievances."

Any suggestion which the Postmaster-General made that the staff claimed to intervene in arbitration was not suggested by the Commission.

Mr. WALSH

I have no doubt in the world that the beginning would be pious and nice, but that the end would be big and awkward. It is the same thing in the long run. We have not rejected this Commission's report. We have offered a field of advancement to a very considerable section of the staff. Ultimately, anything from thirty to forty per cent. of the employees in those two main classes will be advanced to a scale far beyond anything they had anticipated, and they are fortunate in finding that this Dáil is not unfavourable to the acceptance of those proposals, considering the state of the country. I shall not refer to the loss on the service, but to suggest at this stage of our administration, and at this stage of the country's existence, that any added burden sought to be placed on this service is a matter which will be stoutly resisted not only by the Post Office itself, but by the country. I think we have done the best, not only for the staff, but for the service and for the country. We have a desire to bring about the rectification of work which must necessarily and ultimately mean greater efficiency in the discharge of the work of this public department, and above all we have found a means whereby the men will be paid in strict accord with their value and with their work.

At this stageAN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

To begin with, I want to deal with an aspect of this case which arises out of the statement of the Postmaster-General and goes a little beyond the report under discussion. The report is signed by the Postmaster-General, and is headed: "Government's Decision," and right through the report references are made to the Government—"most careful consideration by the Government for many months past"; "decisions of the Government on the Commission's recommendations," and so on. The Postmaster-General, following upon the instructions of the Constitution, is appointed by the Dáil to be the responsible head of the Postal Administration in this country, the responsible head of the department, or departments, under his charge, individually responsible to Dáil Eireann alone for the administration of the department of which he is the head. One would have thought in such a case, that being his charter and responsibility in a matter affecting the administration of his department of such moment as this he would have made his report and decision directly to the Dáil and not try to shelve his responsibility upon the Government and later upon the Minister for Finance.

He has told the Dáil, that body to which he is directly responsible alone, that, in his opinion, ultimate benefit to the service would be achieved by agreeing to a certain increment. Then he said: "I stand alone in thinking it may not be a financial loss to give this increase." He tells the Dáil that the responsible head of the Department does not believe that a certain course would result in financial loss, and that, in fact, he recommends it. But he tells us that he has been over-ruled by another person, namely, the Minister for Finance. That is not the position that he was placed in by the Dáil when he was appointed Postmaster-General, responsible to the Dáil directly, and to the Dáil alone, for the administration of this Department.

According to this morning's newspapers, there were references in the Seanad yesterday to nibbling at the Constitution. I had occasion, two or three weeks ago, to suggest that there were growing evidences of the subordination of the External Ministers, the non-Executive Ministers, to the Executive Council. There was an attempt to repudiate that suggestion. But here we have a clear confession that one Minister, voluntarily and willingly, acceded to that subordination. I say that is not treating the Dáil as the Dáil should have been treated, in accordance with the constitutional requirements. It is not merely nibbling at the Constitution, but is biting chunks out of it.

I can see that the movement, is to avoid the will of the Dáil in setting up the Constitution, to evade, rather, the will of the Dáil, when it set up the Constitution; in fact, to make these non-Executive Ministers subordinate in effect to the Executive Council. I say that the Dáil ought to insist, when it decides that a Minister shall be put into an office responsible to the Dáil directly, that that Minister must report to the Dáil, take the responsibility himself for any recommendations he makes, and not say that the Executive will not agree to this, or that the Minister for Finance will not agree to that. If, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, he says that such a thing is not desirable let him say so, and that he has the responsibility. Let him recommend it accordingly. If, on the other hand, he says that a certain course of action will lead to the proper administration of the Department for which he is responsible, let him come to the Dáil and say: "I recommend that," and then let the Dáil decide between the Minister for Finance and the Minister responsible for the Department which is not ruled by the Executive Council.

I could not help but think when the Minister was speaking that there is probably developing at this moment, on the other side of the water, a discussion, not in surroundings such as this, but in regard to a difference of opinion as to the claims of one set of men which have been reported upon by a Commission, or a Committee, such as this. This Committee was set up in circumstances which are fairly familiar. It is not claimed that it was an Arbitration Court, and that its findings must, inevitably, be agreed to. But, it was a Commission that was set up with a certain character and authority, especially in view of the manner in which the Commission was appointed, to report.

There was a reasonable expectation in the minds of the public, and of the parties concerned, that the report of that Commission would be adopted. I am admitting that it is not incumbent on either party to accept the findings of that Commission. But take the parallel case. The Committee was set up to inquire into the claims of the employers of the railwaymen in England, to determine questions in dispute regarding wages and conditions. Similar machinery has been agreed upon between railwaymen and railway employers in Ireland. The analogy may come home a little closer. The Commission, or Board, or Committee of Inquiry, whatever you like to call it, in connection with the railways, after fully discussing the claims of the companies, for reductions in wages and alterations of conditions, made a report. The report was unanimously agreed to by the members of the court, just as this Commission's report was.

Again, like this Commission, nobody pretends that the report and the decision of that Committee was binding on both parties, or either party, except with that moral bond which, it was believed and hoped, would be enforced by public opinion. One of the sections of one of the parties in connection with the railway dispute has decided not to accept the findings of that Commission, and we read criticism that is levelled against these men for their action.

In this other Commission one of the parties has repudiated the findings. He says, "We are prepared to accept some of the findings (just like the railway companies or the railwaymen), but we are not prepared to accept the report of the Commission, and consequently the matter is as you were." Does the Minister think that that is a desirable state of affairs or a good example to set in view of all the recommendations that are being made about conciliation and arbitration, "look before you leap,""consider before you strike," and all such propositions; if it is considered that an Inquiry of this kind, not, I agree, by a Committee which has authority to enforce an award, but giving careful consideration to every aspect, should be thrown over? It is, I suggest, a bad example to set, and a headline which probably you would advise should not be copied by other people.

One would have imagined that when the Postmaster-General comes to the Dáil to discuss the case, that he would place before us, and have told us what would have been the cost to the Postal Department of the increases that were recommended, and what will be the saving resulting from the changes he proposes, as compared with the recommendations which were made. He does not do that. He brings no budget. He gives no financial justification for his refusal, and I want to remind the Dáil, that in the view of the Commission, and in the view of very able and competent men, the recommendations which they make would not add to the cost of the administration of the Department to any extent whatever. The Minister has not attempted to refute that, but he has recommended to the Dáil certain proposals which by inference will reduce the cost of the administration and reduce it, as it must be, at the expense of the staff.

I ask the Dáil to remember the dates.

The report of this Commission is dated December, 1922, somewhat over a year ago. The difficulties which led to the appointment of the Commission were difficulties of a financial kind. The complaint was that the cost of living had increased disproportionately to the increase in pay, that as a matter of fact and as the Minister frankly acknowledges, the pay of the postal servants at that time was unsatisfactory. Commission after Commission had recommended improvements, but not one of them had been conceded. In December, 1922, a state of things had occurred, arising out of the financial disabilities which led to the trouble, that finally resulted in the setting up of this Commission. In most cases, when there have been suggestions of reductions in the cost of administration and reductions in pay in recent months, they have been justified by reference to the cost of living. Here you have a Report of a Commission making certain suggestions for a permanent scale, and recommending a definite scale of basic wages, to meet the ordinary requirements of men of the various classes, in consideration of the standard of life which they are reasonably expected to maintain. Since that time there has practically been no change in the cost of living. There is a certain stability apparently in regard to prices during the last 12 months. That being the case, I want to know what is the justification for reducing the standards below those recommended by the Commission, when it has been already admitted frankly that the previous scales were unsatisfactory.

I am not going to attempt to go into the details of the various classes, grades and rates of pay. I have heard what the Postmaster-General has to say in defence of his report. I take it, in view of his verbal acceptance of responsibility, that this is his report to the Dáil, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, that he is prepared to stand over the decision of the Government, and that in fact it is his decision. I ask the Dáil to agree in this matter with the resolution, that the decision is not a wise one in view of the recommendations of the Commission, and that in effect the Dáil should refer back the decision to the Postmaster-General, and ask him to have a further consultation with the Minister for Finance, and if he cannot agree then, to come and report again that the Minister for Finance will not agree to his decision respecting his Department, and then leave judgment, as between the two, the Dáil.

It is obvious from the Postmaster-General's contention that the men and women concerned are not going to lose much, if his contention is a sound one. It is equally obvious, if that is a valid argument, that they will not gain much, and, therefore, the cost will not be great if the recommendations of the Commission are adopted. I will ask the Dáil to believe this, that if the cost is not great, it is better for the future of the postal service and for the example which would be set by the acceptance of the report of an impartial Commission of this kind, that the ultimate cost to the community of the rejection of such a report will be very much greater in its effects that any monetary loss which might be sustained by accepting the report in preference to the scale which has been decided upon by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

I know something of the matter under discussion, and the question at issue, and, to some extent, while I follow the arguments of Deputy Johnson, I do not quite agree with him in all his conclusions, but I think he is entitled to raise the question. The Government appointed a Commission to inquire into these matters, and it has reported in a certain direction, and I think that the Postmaster-General is not entitled to say that the Minister for Finance prevents him from carrying out the recommendations of that Commission. The Postmaster-General's department is one of the few in the Saorstát that I have come personally in contact with. I have the most perfect confidence in his judgment and in his sense of fair play, and in this matter, when he informed the Dáil that it is not one he had to deal with but was for the Minister for Finance, I think it is a matter we should take into consideration. The Minister for Finance has got ten millions of money, and the Attorney-General has got his share of it. I hope I am not wronging the Attorney-General. Unless I am mistaken, the Postmaster-General has told the Dáil that the whole matter in dispute is £20,000. A sum of £20,000 for a large and efficient department of the State, which should be conducted in a contented spirit, should not stand in the way.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think it is necessary to say a great deal about this particular matter. The Postmaster-General has dealt with it very fully. With reference to the biting of chunks out of the Constitution, I think that Deputy Johnson knows very well that there has been no interference with the constitutional position, and I do not think that he will produce any break in the ranks by any attempt to magnify the difference of the point of view between the two departments when a matter like this comes up to be considered. No Minister, whether an External Minister or a Minister under the Executive Council, can undertake increased expenditure or raise wages and salaries without the sanction of the Minister for Finance, and I think that the Dáil will agree that that is an absolutely essential precaution. If it were not so, I think it would be impossible to keep any satisfactory control of public expenditure. Responsibility in these matters must be on the shoulders of some one person who will see that there is co-ordination between the various departments of Government, and that we do not have salaries run up in one Department, providing an argument for the increase of salaries in another, without the Dáil or, in fact, anybody being aware of what is happening.

There was absolutely no reason why the Government should regard itself as bound to accept the recommendations of this Commission. The Government was bound to give the most careful consideration to the recommendations; not to turn them down lightly; not to ignore the feeling which they represented. I can say from my own knowledge, because I heard the matter discussed a great deal before I entered the Department of Finance at all, that I know that the recommendations of the Commission were not lightly departed from. But the Government has responsibilities which the Commission had not. The Commission had no responsibility for seeing that our budget balances. The Commission had no responsibility to the taxpayer to keep down taxation or to prevent the burden of taxation from being increased. The Government has to take into account various matters which the Commission was not called upon to take into account, and which a Commission in the ordinary way would not take into account, and in the ordinary course of events the recommendations of any Commission can only be a basis upon which a Government can consider the matter and come to a decision. There are two main matters, I think, on which the Government differed from the Commission. The Government did accept the main recommendation of the Commission in regard to reorganisation, which was really a recommendation of the Post Office itself to the Commission, and in regard to a redistribution of work. The main points of difference were in regard to the Class B postmen. The wages at present paid to the postmen doing ordinary postmen's work here are the same as those paid in the big cities of England. We have a Post Office which actually makes a loss, and which is, therefore, a burden to that extent on the ordinary taxpayer. We have higher taxation than in Great Britain. It seems, on the face of it, ridiculous to suggest that we should increase the wages of our postmen above the rate in the big English cities with a Post Office that is losing while the British Post Office is making, and with taxation higher than Great Britain. Deputy O'Connell did not, I think, attempt to defend the recommendation of the Commission that they should be so increased. He simply said that the Commission did not think that 43/- was too much. He did not make any arguments in favour of the Commission's Report. The other matter was in regard to the class of Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists mentioned by the Postmaster-General. Again we do not feel that when there is no new work, or no higher grade of work being given, that any case has been made for an increase in the salaries. No doubt, it would have pleased the officials. I do not know what measure of contentment it would have brought, but we are not in a position to throw out considerable sums of money to please any particular class.

My own opinion is that a great deal of the discontent in the Post Office arose out of the insubordination that grew up during the years we have passed through. It was because they were insubordinate and were allowed to do all sort of things that they should not have been allowed to do and were not hopped on when they should have been hopped on——

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is what they were encouraged to do.

Mr. BLYTHE

That might be, but I really think the particular discontent was not by any means a question of wages, or mainly of wages. It arose out of other causes. We have heard a great deal of talk about wages. They have been continually mentioned, but the wage mentioned has always been the basic wage. Deputies should realise that the wages paid are very much higher than the figure mentioned. For instance, a postman at present gets to a wage of 40/-, but that is actually 71/8. The Commission recommended that he should go to 43/-, and that means that he should go to 75/10. It seems to me that for the ordinary postman delivering letters 71/8 is a wage we do not need to justify not increasing. In addition to that, the postmen have continuity of employment, pensions, uniforms, and, as somebody said, they get Christmas boxes. There is no reason really in the arguments of Deputy O'Connell. With regard to Class A postmen, the men who are being promoted to do the work formerly done by sorting clerks, the Commission recommend they should go to 52/-, which is really 88/5. We decided to let the maximum be 48/-, which actually gives them a wage of 82/10 per week, and it seems to me that 82/10 is quite adequate for the work, which is of a very simple and mechanical nature.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister say what proportion of the staffs get that maximum rate?

Mr. BLYTHE

That is a matter that I think remains to be found—the number that will be promoted to Grade A.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has quoted a certain figure, 71/8, which he says they receive at present. What proportion of Grade B, for instance, actually receives 71/8?

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot tell the Deputy; but it is the regular scale. Anyone can work out the proportion.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is it more than one-fifth?

Mr. WALSH

I should certainly say more than fifty per cent. receive it.

Mr. BLYTHE

The scale begins, at the age of 18, at 20/-, which gives 37/11, and that for a boy of eighteen delivering letters, is certainly, in all the circumstances of the country, an ample wage. My own feelings about the matter is, not that the Government have to defend their refusal to accept the recommendations of the Committee, but that anything we would have to defend would be in going so far as we did, having regard to all the circumstances of the country, towards accepting them. We might very well have refused to go as far as we did. We have enabled men in the Post Office, who are capable of doing it, to go a great deal further up the scale than they previously could have done, or than they had any hope at all of being able to reach. There was a great deal of delay in dealing with this Report, but the circumstances of the country were such that we had work that was really more urgent, and far more important, to do, and, perhaps, if we had dealt with this matter very hastily it would have been more displeasing to Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Johnson than the way in which we actually did deal with it. The Postal officials will have in the future opportunities that they have not had in the past. They will be able to get on the headquarters work that previously was done by other classes. Those who are able to do that work will be promoted to do it, and a large number of them will get that promotion, and will be enabled to enter the Clerical Class, and will go up if the present scale remains to something like £237 10s. per annum. As a matter of fact, it is very probable we will not retain that maximum at all for the Clerical Classes outside the Post Office. The matter is under consideration, and it is most probable that that maximum will be reduced, so that the scale running to £182 10s. per annum, which will be given to those doing duties in headquarter offices, is even more favourable. With regard to the Commission's recommendation to give an advance of 3/6 a week to any postman put on Grade A whose wages were 29/- a week or less, and an increase of 5/- if his wages exceeded 29/-, what the Government has done is to give one increment, and that is the usual thing in the Civil Service. I think there was no justification for a recommendation for anything more than that. I do not want to say anything about the work of the Commission. They, no doubt, spent a great deal of time on it and went to a great deal of trouble, and I think the members of the Commission deserve the thanks of the public for doing the work, but at the same time I must say that they certainly did not present a Report which any Government could have thought of accepting in its entirety.

Mr. O'CONNELL

In his opening remarks, the Postmaster-General rather implied that I was presenting the case entirely from the point of view of the officials of the Post Office. I wish to disabuse the Dáil of any such misapprehension. I was presenting the case from the point of view of the unanimous report of the Commission, and that report fell very far short, in many respects, of the claims put forward by the Postal officials. I did not presume to, I did not intend, and I actually did not present the case from the official point of view. I attempted to justify the unanimous report of the Commission set up by the Government themselves.

I was more than surprised to hear the Postmaster-General, above anybody else, attempting to base his justification upon what had been done by the British Government in the past. Surely the last man one would expect to hear that from is the Postmaster-General? He recited a whole litany of Commissions that had made recommendations under the previous régime, and he said the British Government did not accept these recommendations, and why be surprised because the Irish Government do not accept the recommendations of Commissions? If that is the case, as it seems to me to be the one that the Postmaster-General presented, he forgot, in the first place, that we might hope to expect something better from an Irish Government than from a British Government, and he forgot especially that the very fact of all these recommendations having been made in the past, and having been turned down, went to show that the postal officials had a case, and very strong case, to look for increases. And he proved, if proof were necessary, the statement I made in my opening speech, that in 30 years the only increase that had been given to postal officials amounted to an increase of 5/-, and that 3/- out of that 5/- was advanced in 1920. I was especially interested to hear what he had to say as to the promotion of sorting clerks and telegraphists to the clerical grades in the Headquarters Office. If the Postmaster-General is prepared to give an undertaking that all the vacancies in the Headquarters Offices will be filled through promotion from the sorting clerks and telegraphist class, then, that is, so far, satisfactory, and that was one of the things the Commission had aimed at—that these vacancies should be so filled. But the position at the present time is very different from what the Commission had in mind. The Commission were anxious, and I think the Department was anxious, judging by the evidence it put up, that the Post Office should be a self-contained institution, and that was the idea the Commission had in mind, and that men engaged in the higher grades in the clerical offices ought to be men who had worked their way up and had gone through the mill. But that is not the position at the present. There is nothing to prevent, under the present regulations, men being transferred from various other Departments, such as the Land Commission and the Education Department, or any other Department, to the Post Office. There is what is known as the Treasury Class, engaged in the Secretary's Office, and in the higher administrative positions in the Post Office, and these are under the direct control, as it were, of the Treasury Department. Now, these are the people who are paid up to the maximum of £237 10s. If, as I say, there is an undertaking given that any vacancies occurring in that Department will in future be filled by men who worked their way up through the Post Office and have gone through the mill, it will go a long way towards removing a certain amount of the discontent that at present exists—discontent due to the fact that men find themselves up against a stone wall with all avenues to further promotion blocked——

Mr. WALSH

As a general principle that method of selection will be applied. There may be a certain amount of reservation—I cannot possibly confine myself to an absolute rule in relation to it—but as a general principle that will apply.

Mr. O'CONNELL

There is just one point in connection with that which is important to note. I think in his statement the Postmaster-General said that these positions would be filled by competition within the service. There is one thing in connection with that that I want to draw attention to, because the position is not exactly what it appears to be from that statement. There may be competition, and there may be two men, or even six men, for a vacancy when it occurs. One of the applicants may be at the top of his scale, and may be a man of 40 or 44 years of age, a highly efficient man, capable of doing all the work necessary in that particular post. You may have another applicant, a young man, say, of 22 years of age, who has just entered the service. If you put these two men in competition for the post, there is no doubt as to who is going to get it. The young man will get it, because he has just left school; and I suggest that it is not equitable or right that he should get this higher post and reach his maximum at that age. I think these vacancies should be reserved for the man with the senior service, if he is capable of doing the work. The Postmaster-General, and the Minister for Finance also, I think, would have the Dáil believe that there was only a question of a difference of 4/- in this transfer of postmen to the higher work. There is more than that in it. There is the question of how soon they will reach that point, and at the moment what it will mean in effect is that although these men are transferred and turned on to do this higher class of work they will only benefit to the extent of 1/6 per week. If that is not so, I would like to have the statement corrected, and in the case of the men who are not at their maximum they will get no increment.

Mr. BLYTHE

They will get one year's increment on being put into Grade A.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Even those who are not at their maximum?

Mr. WALSH

Even in the case of postmen transferred to sorting duty, it is intended to grant an immediate increment of 1/6, and in the case of sorting clerks similarly allocated to one of these special functions, there will be no departure except the officer has terminated 12 months as a maximum.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Then the only increase they will get at the moment is 1/6, so that the figures that were quoted by the Minister for Finance are the maximum figures that will be reached only in five years hence. As I have already explained, the Commission did not suggest an Arbitration Board which would have the powers usually attributed to an Arbitration Board, but it did suggest that it would be well that some machinery should be set up to facilitate the discussion and the adjustment of differences which would lead to harmony within the Post Office service. That has been completely turned down by the Postmaster-General, but that of course is a new and growing fashion which we are getting used to, and no doubt it will help us to appreciate what native Government has brought us to. Again, I would like to impress on those who listened to the Minister for Finance speaking of the good wage paid to people delivering letters and telegrams around the country, that the figures given do not apply to these people. The wage referred to in every case, as pointed out by the Postmaster-General, refers to Dublin City alone. In all other cases, such as Cork and Class 2 and Class 3 offices, under which country offices come in, there is a great difference, indeed, between what they are paid and the city rates. The city rates were taken for the sake of convenient reference and illustration.

I was genuinely surprised to hear the lecture on insubordination which we had from the Minister for Finance. It comes poorly, indeed, at this stage of our history to have these men who gave their services, such as they were, in the Post Office and incurred risk by giving them to the cause of the country, a cause which the Minister for Finance, and others, were advocating at the time, it is a poor thing I say that at this stage of our history the services they rendered should be thrown back in their teeth to-day. If it were not for the insubordination of these men at that time we would not have the Secretary of the Post Office or the Postmaster-General where they are to-day.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 45.

Tá.

• Séamus Eabhróid.
• David Hall.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl.

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Séamus de Burca.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Máirghéad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
• Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Henry J. Finlay.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Hennigan.
• Connor Hogan.
• Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
• Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
• Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
• Risteárd Mac Liam
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Patrick MacKenna.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Próinsias O Cathail.
• Aodh O Cinnéide.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhghaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Seán Príomhdhail.
• Liam Thrift.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.

Motion declared lost.