COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES—VOTE No. 56 (POST OFFICE)—RESUMED. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Friday, 22 May 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES—VOTE No. 56 (POST OFFICE)—RESUMED.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I would like to support Deputy Gorey in his statement with regard to the charges for delivery of telegrams. The extra cost is causing a great deal of annoyance, expense and inconvenience to people living in rural districts. I live within four miles of a Post Office, and I have to pay 1s. 6d. on every telegram I receive. I do not know how the scale is fixed; I think the first mile is free, the second mile is 6d., the third mile is 6d., and so on. At one time the charge was only 6d. This is adversely affecting any business carried on in rural districts; it is causing a diminution in the number of telegrams sent, and is causing a great deal of annoyance, because one frequently gets telegrams of very minor importance and one finds oneself faced with a charge of 1s. 6d. on the green envelope. That has to be paid or else the telegram goes back. To a certain extent this is acting to the detriment of the service. It is preventing people from sending telegrams and possibly what is made by the charge is lost by the fact that fewer telegrams are sent.

This has to be taken in conjunction with other things; it has to be taken in conjunction with the fact that since the Government took over postal affairs rural deliveries have been considerably curtailed. In a great many cases people only get three deliveries a week, and in view of that it is often essential that telegrams should be sent where letters would otherwise have done. That leads to another thing, the question of telephone installations and the improvement of telephone facilities in country districts. The Minister has told us that these facilities are being extended, that new exchanges have been opened in many parts of the country. I think he said that something like forty had been opened during the year. I commend the Minister for his enterprise in that respect, but I would ask if he has given any real consideration to the installation of telephones in country districts, real rural districts, and not small towns. It is hardly necessary to point out that much use is being made in other countries of telephones in rural districts. In America and in Canada, I believe, it is quite common to have an installation in almost every farmhouse. The same thing applies in many continental countries, possibly in Denmark. It has been found a great convenience, and it saves a great deal of time and expense to farmers and others. I might point out that a very elaborate or expensive system is not necessary, and that poles and wires which need not be of a very costly type could be used.

I would suggest that the Minister should consider employing what are known as party lines, which are in use in rural districts elsewhere. I am not quite sure exactly how they are worked, but I understand they can be erected much cheaper than the ordinary variety. All I know about them is that when one person on the line speaks all the others can hear what he says, so that in addition to being cheap such a line would also provide a good deal of amusement to people who listen-in to others talking. At any rate, this system permits of the installation of cheap telephone lines. So important for the furtherance of business and the improvement of conditions, socially and otherwise, in rural districts is this matter that I would be inclined to support a system which might in the first instance involve a certain amount of loss to the State, but which might afterwards pay. I want to press this matter on the Minister's attention, particularly in view of the existing rather poor postal facilities. One ought to be made to balance the other to a certain extent, and undoubtedly a retrograde step has been taken as far as country districts are concerned; business has been made very difficult, and, generally speaking, conditions have been put back.

With regard to bank holidays and deliveries in the rural districts, I think the Minister should give some consideration to the question of giving extra deliveries on days before and after bank holidays. I find that in cases where bank holidays intervene, letters often take six and sometimes seven days from the time of posting to the time of delivery. It may happen that the usual day of delivery is Friday. It may also happen that the following Monday is a bank holiday—bank holiday usually fall on Mondays. The result is that letters posted on the Thursday, or perhaps the Wednesday, will not be delivered on Friday or on Monday, which is the bank holiday. They will not be delivered until the following Wednesday. That means that it takes a week from the time of posting to the time of delivery. A great deal of inconvenience is caused in that way. I, personally, have suffered a great deal of inconvenience owing to this arrangement. I have had persons wiring to me asking why I did not take a certain course of action, at a time when I had not received the letter they had sent me previously in regard to the matter.

With regard to the sixpenny tax on parcels, which, as far as I remember, is known as the statistical tax, it was imposed, not for the purpose of making the parcel post pay for itself, but for the purpose of placing the parcel post on a level with the system obtaining on railways and in other carrying companies. I strongly protested against this and I think still it is a great disadvantage to the country and hampers business. I am not aware that any number of houses have been opened in this country for the purpose of distributing goods which formerly came from England. The only effect of this tax is to hamper people and prevent them from getting things which they could otherwise get cheaply from England. There are many things which could be got through the post by means of advertisements in the daily papers which are not and cannot be manufactured in Ireland. Owing to the conditions which exist in England they can be got there at a cheap rate, probably on account of being manufactured in bulk, and because they are sold in large quantities. I am not aware that any business men in Ireland have taken advantage of the opportunity, which was supposed to be created by this tax, to establish depots for the purpose of distributing these goods. Many Irish people took advantage of this postal system to enable them to buy articles cheaply which they cannot get at all now. There are many things of considerable use in ordinary life, including articles of wearing apparel, which could be got by this system. The imposition of this statistical tax has very seriously impeded people in getting these articles.

The Minister has stated that the parcel system is not a paying one and that it is run at a very serious loss to the Department. I only want to make a suggestion—I do not know what it is worth or whether it would be practicable in this country but it is a system that is in vogue in other countries— that we should consider the question of a zone rate for parcels. That is, that a varying charge should be made for parcels according to the distance they are to be sent. I am not recommending it at this stage. I do not know that it would be suitable under the conditions existing in Ireland, but I would suggest that the Minister should give it his consideration.

Major COOPER

I think, before we begin to criticise this Vote, there are two things that need to be said. The first is that some acknowledgment should be made of the fact the Minister is invariably courteous and accessible to Deputies, whatever party they may belong to, who come to him with any grievances on behalf of their constituents. He does his best to meet us, no matter what part of the House we sit in, so far as he can consistently with the policy of his Department, and I think he should know we are grateful to him. Secondly, he is entitled to praise for his active, progressive policy with regard to the utilisation of motor transport. I think that there, a very great and a very important departure has been taken by the introduction of light motor vans, motor cycles and sidecars for postal purposes. My only point of complaint—it may seem to be somewhat churlish—in that connection is that the Estimates do not tell us enough about it. I would like to know what has been spent on the purchase of motor vehicles and how much they cost for upkeep and running. That does not appear very clearly in the Estimates. I do find one item in Stores, sub-head (G), (1):—"Miscellaneous stores (including cycles, motor cycles, string stamping machines, etc.)." Now, since the days I read "Alice through the Looking Glass," and read of "shoes and ships and sealing-wax," I never met quite such a miscellaneous collection in my life. To parody that, one might say:—"The time has come, the Minister said, to talk of many things, of cycles, stamping machines, of motor vehicles, and strings," and I would like to have more details given on this point. I think a comparison between, say, the cost of upkeep and the cost of running of motor vehicles in the Post Office and in the Army might be instructive, and the more facts we can get on points like these, the better equipped we are to criticise.

I leave the path of eulogy, possibly modified eulogy, and come to the path of criticism. The Minister told us, with regard to postal rates, that on the whole, except as compared with Great Britain and Northern Ireland, our postal rates were low, that they were about the same level as other countries and in many cases lower. I am only going to make comparisons with the countries I know something about. The postal rate for a letter from France to this country is 75 centimes. At the present rate of exchange, that is a little over 2d. It is certainly less than 2½d A letter from this country to France costs 3d. Coming to Switzerland the rate is more favourable to the Minister. From Switzerland to Ireland a letter costs 3d. and from Ireland to Switzerland it costs 3d. There we are on the same level. In Switzerland, however, the user of the Post Office gets a far better service than he does in this country. I was in a suburban place in Switzerland last month, something like Dalkey, where I live. I found that there they had four deliveries a day where in Dalkey we have only two. I found that they had six collections a day, where in Dalkey we have three. For the same price you get double the service, and in addition, the Post Office was much less tied down by rules. You were not tied down, for instance, to any particular size in sending parcels. The general endeavour to give good service is greater than in this country. I am afraid that we have a minimum service at a maximum cost. If the Minister will compare not only the cost of postage but also the facilities given by Post Offices in foreign countries, he will find that the comparison is not favourable to ours. I do not want to underrate the difficulties he has to contend with. He has had simultaneously to increase efficiency and to decrease expenditure and that is not an easy thing to do. At the same time, if he carries his comparison beyond postal rates into postal facilities he will find that we are not getting all we might expect.

I want to touch on a point which Deputy Heffernan mentioned. Deputy Heffernan spoke of a zone rate for parcels. I would not confine it to parcels. I would make it a question of giving lower rates for local services. In France and Switzerland local letters go at a small cost indeed. In Switzerland, in an area which may be compared with the Dublin Metropolitan Police area, you can send a letter from one end of it to another for the equivalent of a penny. You pay 2d. here. In Continental countries it has been found profitable and helpful, generally, to cultivate the short local delivery by giving a lower rate which does not cost the Post Office much. Has that matter been considered here at all, and if so, would the Minister tell us the reason which induced him to turn it down? At present not only does the local Post get no better facilities than the distant Post, but it actually gets worse facilities. I was looking at a circular which, I think, was issued by the Minister on the first of the month. It is to be seen in the Post Office at the bottom of the stairs. There you find that for letters for the district between Dublin and Greystones the latest time for posting at the College Green Office is 5.30. If you are sending a letter south of Greystones, further away, at the same cost, you have up to 6.30 to post it. That seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs. If you send a letter to Brí Chualainn it has to be posted at 5.30. If you send it through Brí Chualainn to Arklow you have an extra hour to post it. You pay the same 2d. for sending that letter to either place. I ask the Minister how can that be justified?

The Minister raised the question of a direct exchange for parcels. He told us arrangements have been made for a direct parcel post to various countries. I think the Minister did not enumerate France amongst those countries, and I suggest it would be desirable to extend that direct exchange of parcels to France for this reason. A considerable proportion of the parcels imported from France are silk or materials into which silk enters. Those being wearing apparel would be taxable here and also, as containing silk, they would be taxable in Great Britain. If you add the whips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the scorpions of the Minister for Finance you will find that trade will be killed. There will be great advantage, therefore, in getting a direct postal service with France and thereby escaping the British duties. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

Another point I want to raise on this amendment is what you call headquarters costs. We find in this estimate, generally speaking, a reduction. There is a reduction on metropolitan offices and a reduction on provincial offices. There appears to be a certain reduction of services. In this Department, as in other Departments, as in the Department of the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance, and possibly other Departments, there is a tendency for the administrative costs to increase, while the services rendered do not increase. That matter wants to be looked to. Headquarters office increased by £8,000, and stores branch by £20,000, while there are no additional services, and while the cost for the various other offices, metropolitan and provincial, have fallen. There may be, and I daresay there is, an excellent explanation for this, but the Dáil ought to have it. There is this apparently general tendency to put up the cost of the Minister's own administrative offices, while the services which those offices supervise and control are being decreased. I think it is a tendency that wants to be watched, and it certainly should be justified.

Now, I come to my last point, a point which was made also by Deputy Heffernan regarding the parcels tax. The Minister justified it—what is commonly called the statistical tax— on the ground that those parcels were, at any rate, uneconomic for us to deliver, and that, therefore, it was desirable to get back some of the additional costs. That doctrine varies according to place, and varies very much. I do not think the Minister would tell us that it costs 6d. to deliver a parcel from Great Britain in Dún Laoghaire or a parcel from Newry in Dundalk. Therefore, you are making the people in those areas pay the cost of delivery in Kerry or Clare, which is not, perhaps, entirely equitable. Again, I should like a little fuller information about the reduction in the number of parcels. The reduction was from 54,000 to 39,000 taken over typical weeks. The Minister admitted that the book post has increased. What proportion of that reduction has been transferred to the book post?

A point was made by Deputy Heffernan, in an interruption, that the number of parcels is, to a certain extent, misleading. It may be that two or three or more parcels, which were sent through the post in the past, are now being bulked and sent in one parcel. We ought to know all these facts in order to form a true estimate as to the effect of that duty.

The Minister said that he intended to retain this tax. That is a very different voice to that of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, dealing with a similar tax—a tax dealing with goods sent by rail and sent by sea and so on—said that in view of the fact that the tax only came into operation in September of last year and that they had only had six months' experience of its working, it would be continued for the present year. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is much more emphatic. He says, "We intend to retain it." Who are "we"? The Minister is not a member of the Executive Council.

Mr. WALSH

The Dáil.

Major COOPER

Does the Minister suggest that the Dáil intends to retain it?

Mr. WALSH

Yes.

Major COOPER

When did the Minister ask the Dáil to retain it?

Mr. WALSH

On a previous Vote.

Major COOPER

On the only Votes on the subject in the Dáil, the Dáil refused either to approve or disapprove of this tax. It has never been definitely affirmed or approved of by the Dáil. I put it to the Minister, without undue hostility, that this tax is bound up, to a very considerable extent, with the statistical tax on goods imported otherwise—that one of its justifications, at any rate, is the fact that goods coming in by other channels pay a 6d. tax and that it would be inequitable for goods coming in by post to compete with them, free of this tax. The statistical tax has not been put forward at all as emphatically as the Minister has defended this tax. The Minister for Finance has admitted that he wants more information, that he is continuing the tax for this year, but that he may be open to reconsider it in the light of further information. I suggest that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs might not unreasonably adopt a similar attitude. There may be advantages in this tax. But I must say that I fail to see them and I am going to put down an amendment to the Finance Bill, dealing with this particular tax, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it. But if the statistical tax goes, this postal parcel tax should also go. The two were imposed on the same grounds and for the same reason and if the Dáil decides that the statistical tax on non-postal parcels is to be removed, then, logically, I do not think we can retain this tax on postal parcels, unless the Minister can put up a very much stronger case than he has put up, up to the present, as to the cost of conveying those parcels and the inconvenience caused by the handling of them. I suggest that it would be wiser to follow the example of the Minister for Finance and to admit that there is not yet full knowledge on the subject and let the Dáil know that the matter will be investigated again in September of this year, or such later date as seems to the Minister desirable.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of procedure, I would like to ask if the Minister is going to reply now. Every Deputy has the right to speak three or four times and the Minister has the right to reply three times, and I think the Minister should reply now to some of the points raised. There is no use in sitting tight and "finessing."

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Hewat made reference to some queries I put to the Minister, in the course of his speech, regarding the profits or losses in different departments. He appeared to interpret that as a demand on my part for what may be called a "profit and loss account." That is certainly not my desire or demand at all. I do not think it is practicable, in such a Department as this, or in any other State Department, to produce a profit and loss account, in the ordinary commercial or accountancy sense. When the Minister was speaking of telegraphs and parcels, he referred in round sums to the losses in particular years. I thought it would be very helpful if we could have a round figure indicating the loss or gain in respect of each of the main Departments of the Post Office. I realise that, as the Minister pointed out, if you take the ordinary postal service—the letter delivery—so many departments intermix and overlap, it is impossible to detach the different costs, without an expense which would be probably greater than any advantage that would accrue. But it would be helpful if some kind of rough estimate could be made. However, the Minister has shown that that is not practicable within anything like accurate limits.

I think it is generally admitted that the Post Office service—particularly the collection and delivery of communications in the form of letters and written messages—is not a service that is going to be profit-making in this country. The more thickly populated areas, having the greater amount of correspondence—that is to say, the cities—will have to bear some of the cost of delivery in the sparsely populated areas in the country. We have to regard it as a public service, the cost of which is borne by the general community, with such limitations in the way of charges as may be considered fair in the circumstances.

I do not think that in this country the system of "zones," which has been suggested—that is to say, making a lower charge upon a Dublin citizen for communicating with a Dublin citizen than would be made upon a Dublin citizen for communicating with a citizen of Galway—would be fair and equitable. A Galway citizen writing to a friend in Dublin would be mulcted in charges disproportionate to those of his friends who might be writing from Dublin. So far as the general postal service or letter delivery is concerned, I think the present system is perfectly sound. But when we are told that the loss on telegraphs and parcels is so very heavy, it does raise a question as to whether the whole community has a right to bear losses in respect of service to particular sections of the community. It will be admitted, I suppose, that the telegraph service, for instance, is disproportionately used by the distributive trading element in the country as contrasted with, say, the farming community and the general working-class population. We have reason to believe that a particular section of that business community—I use the term for want of a more courteous designation—a fraternity which depends for a livelihood upon betting, and a large number of the general public who think that their chances of prosperity will come through betting, make disproportionate use of the telegraph service by sending and receiving telegrams relating to bets. We have fairly general knowledge of that, but it may not be quite accurate. The Minister may, perhaps, be able to assist us. I wonder whether it is fair to the general community that this big loss on telegraphs should be borne by the general public, having regard to the unprofitable facilities given for this particular kind of business.

As regards parcels, I suppose there are abnormal losses on parcels, and one sees that the parcels delivery is mainly on behalf of the distributive trades. That is much more easily defensible. But it is a question whether this kind of public subsidy to the business community should be borne without recognition. I am rather inclined to call attention to the fact that the distributive section of the business community is being subsidised by the general community in this matter.

I was astonished at the doctrine preached by the Minister yesterday afternoon regarding his duty in respect of productive work at the Post Office stores factory. Last year, I think, the Minister told us that this factory was moving ahead prosperously. This year we are told that there has been an increase in the number of employees from 126 to 250. The Minister has told us that much of the work that is being done there is being done more economically and more satisfactorily than it could be done by any contract system—that, in fact, he has established a productive factory which is supplying the public services—not the Post Office service alone—with material more economically than similar goods could be purchased.

It is hoped that that will continue. That is the Minister's position. The country has been saved certain charges because of the economy with which these stores have been produced as compared with the position if they had been bought from contractors. But then we are told that in time, when this institution has developed, when it is put on a sound basis, when the State has proved the practicability and the profitableness of the processes, trained the employees in methods and management and so on, it is intended to hand the whole business over to private enterprise—to a company or to an individual—to carry on. It is an extraordinary view to take of the functions of a department: that the risks incidental to the establishment of such an industry should be undertaken by the community and that when it has proved to be profitable and satisfactory in supplying the public service it should then be handed over to private enterprise to take advantage of all the developments and of the experience that has been gained. There are departments of the postal and telegraph service which, no doubt, could be selected and proved to be profitable. One might say that once you proved them to be profitable, once you have stood the losses and turned the corner financially, then you are to hand them over to private companies and let them make what they can out of them in the future. That is an inversion of every idea of social development that I am familiar with. The charge previously has been the other way round; that these undertakings are not run profitably by the State and therefore they should be handed over to private enterprise. Here we say: "We will continue this business which no private enterprise has undertaken; we will make it profitable, and then we shall hand it over, having proved it profitable."

I hope the Minister will enlarge upon this matter and give us some clear explanation of his policy and how far he would go in that direction. Deputy Hewat, I think, suggested that the telephone service would be more efficiently carried out by private enterprise. Does the Minister visualise that when the telephone service becomes even more satisfactory than it is—and there is still room for improvement— and commercially profitable, it will be handed over to a private company; that as each Department is turned from being a losing to a profitmaking department he will then suggest the handing over of the department to a company, leaving the community to bear all the losses? A little elucidation of his views on this matter would be helpful and interesting.

There was an omission from the Minister's statement which I would press him to supply. He made no reference to the policy of the department respecting wireless broadcasting There have been occasional questions raised and answers given to the effect that the matter was in the hands of the Minister for Finance, but I think we are entitled to some statement from the Minister as to what the policy of his Department is. Perhaps if we knew the proposals of the Minister or had a general outline of them, we would be entitled to press upon the Minister for Finance that he should give sanction to these proposals. The Minister has stated publicly, and I think in the Dáil, that he is bound by the resolution of the Dáil, which generally approved of the report of the Wireless Broadcasting Committee. That committee made certain recommendations. It made alternate recommendations regarding the position of the postal department in regard to broadcasting. One was that the installation and working should be a department of the postal service. The alternative was that the installation and working should be undertaken by the postal department and that the programmes might be provided by boards or associations specially set up for the purpose. The Minister's general proposals regarding the carrying out of the recommendations of the committee, which he says were approved by the Dáil, should be presented to the Dáil. We should know exactly what the position is in regard to this matter. There are people who have a definite business interest in the question as to whether there is to be a business associated with broadcasting or not. If there is not to be, then these people will know how to carry on their own business operations. Certainly, some decisions are due to them, as well as to the remainder of the community who would desire to enter upon the enjoyment of broadcasting, or, shall I say, suffer some of the tortures that "listening-in" creates.

Mr. GOOD

One is not obliged to listen-in unless one likes.

Mr. JOHNSON

No, but one of the faults of humanity is that for fashion sake suffering will be endured. It may be that to follow the fashion of "listening-in" suffering may be endured.

Mr. GOOD

Fashions have weaknesses.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is another matter——

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Deputy will have two other opportunities.

Mr. GOOD

Would the Minister not deal with these different matters as they arise, instead of giving us one comprehensive statement, because it does not give us an opportunity of raising a discussion on some points that we may be interested in. Some other Ministers have followed that precedent very usefully.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

It is much more expeditious to have the various remarks in one speech.

Mr. GOOD

Expedition is not always the wisest thing in the matter of estimates.

Mr. WALSH

I spoke last night for one hour and twenty minutes covering every point. That ought to be ample until such time as I speak again. There is no intention of intervening on any of these points until I do so finally.

Mr. DALY

I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the very able statement he made last evening. We all know that he has a very difficult task in carrying out his duties. I am sure it would be very pleasing for the Minister to come here as head of his Department and show that he was making a profit. Instead of that he comes here loaded with huge losses in some branches of his Department. He pointed out, I think, that he was losing something like £240,000 on the telegraph services. In face of that figure he is called upon to lose, perhaps, £50,000 or £60,000 more on the same service. The people who ask him to do that have a grievance, perhaps. Deputy Cooper congratulated the Minister a few minutes ago on his courtesy. When the Minister tries to effect an economy he is told by some Deputies: "This is a hardship; do not inflict this hardship on such a person." The Minister, being a Cork man, falls into the trap with that good nature which characterises the whole people of that county.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Poor innocent Cork men.

Mr. DALY

I think the Minister has a very difficult task, and while we are all entitled to question him in the discharge of his duties, we should be all —and I believe we are—ready to do our best to help him. I was pleased when he said that, even though by the use of motor-bicycles he could dispense with the services of some of the workers, he did not like to do so as they would only have to join the ranks of the unemployed. I firmly agree with the Minister in a great many of the things he has done; for instance, the tax placed on parcels. That pleased some people and displeased others. As a result of it we thought that industries would be helped and that goods advertised in the "Daily Mail" would no longer be brought into the country but would be purchased in Dublin, Cork or some other centre. When we congratulated the Minister on that tax I believe we did so because we thought the tax would be a safeguard for Irish industries, and that the idea was not to make a profit for the Post Office. I believe if the Minister thought that the tax was not doing good and was not helping industries he would abandon it.

Mr. GOOD

With regard to the proposal of Deputy Heffernan that the rates on telegrams might be reduced, I am afraid that would not commend itself. The telegraphic service in addition to being a considerable loss——

Mr. GOREY

An all round loss.

Mr. GOOD

——is, I am afraid, more than any other of the postal services what we might call an abused service. It is used very largely, as was pointed out, for betting and other purposes that cannot by any means be looked upon as national assets. To withdraw charges about which complaints have been made would mean that the service would be more largely used for these particular purposes, and that larger use would create very much larger losses.

Deputy Heffernan pointed out that it costs 1/6 to deliver a telegram a distance of four miles from a post office. His idea appeared to be, and I think to some extent it is Deputy Johnson's, although he did not express it very clearly, that there should be a flat rate for telegrams. The Deputy advanced in the argument he put forward a little along that road, but he did not go quite as far as Deputy Heffernan. We know that in the West there are places eight, ten or fifteen miles from a post office.

Mr. GOREY

It is from these places the betting telegrams are sent.

Mr. GOOD

In many cases the telegraph service is made use of for purposes that could be dealt with by ordinary letter post. In fact, it would be desirable in some cases if information did not reach these places at all. Let us look at it from that view point. If we are to have a flat rate for telegrams does anyone suggest that a telegram should be delivered ten miles from a post office without an excess charge being made? That system does not exist anywhere else. Deputy Johnson has pointed out that the business community is being subsidised by the general community. I wonder if we were to establish the flat rate that he proposes in this particular case for telegrams——

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think that anything I said would bear the interpretation Deputy Good has put upon it. I had no thought of making a flat rate for telegrams at all. My inclination is rather the other way, so far as telegrams are concerned, as I do not think they are in the same category as the ordinary postal services.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. GOOD

I accept the explanation. II do not know that Deputy Johnson, when he was making his statement, was quite clear that it did not include telegraphic services. Therefore, it is quite obvious that that is not a proposition that will meet with any general support, even from Deputy Johnson. We have now what is known as the flat rate for postal service. There, I think, he was talking about the business community being subsidised by the general community. I am not at all satisfied that the argument that applies to the telegraph service should not apply outside a certain zone to the postal service. I do not think we are quite justified in making deliveries of letters ten, twelve and fifteen miles from the Post Office without some extra charge. However, that is a matter that I think has been possibly engaging the attention of the Minister, not from the point of view of making a charge, but from the point of view, possibly—an equally desirable one—of seeing how the expenses incurred in connection with those letters may be reduced considerably. We should get this service down to the charges that exist at the other side. Because when we stand in the position that we are in, it becomes a burden on business, and it is desirable from that point of view, at all events, to be put in the same footing as the business men in the North of Ireland and elsewhere. That being a desirable object, I think the matter of creating zones for letters ought to be one to be considered. And when you look at the latter point of view I doubt if even the postal service will justify Deputy Johnson's contention that the business community is being subsidised by the general community. I think possibly the reverse is the case, because I think if any branch of the service pays it is that branch in connection with the cities.

Now, in regard to the question of this statistical or parcels tax, we were hoping that that tax might have been in some way modified. It is a tax that has created an immense amount of trouble. But there is a suggestion that has been made in connection with this that, I think, ought to be considered by the Minister. The suggestion is this: Round about the festive season at Christmas, as we know, a great many presents are sent from friends in distant parts to relatives and others in this country; and I have known a number of hard cases where these poor people had parcels sent to them by relatives at Christmas and where they found that these parcels were chargeable with a considerable amount on delivery. Where the heads of the families were unemployed, and through other causes, these people were unable, in many cases, to pay these charges and the parcels were taken away. I understand that in other countries where a similar tax exists, around the festive season power is given to relax the tax. If something on the same lines could be done here, by way of relaxation of this tax, there would be no serious loss to the Post Office. I think the Dáil would possibly be inclined to agree with that principle.

The only other point on which I would like to say a word would be on this question of workshops that has been referred to by the Minister, and also by Deputy Johnson. That, I think, we all agree, was a desirable enterprise on the part of the Minister. He pointed out to us on several occasions that he had difficulty in getting the quantity and class of material that he required for delivery in a short time in many cases, and in other cases he found owing to the high charges that he was able to manufacture these different commodities at a lower rate. That was particularly desirable during the period when he was extending, or, in other words, when he was laying down a great deal of new works. But there comes a time, of course, when capital expenditure of that kind comes to an end, when there is not sufficient work to maintain a factory or workshop of that dimension on ordinary maintenance work. If the Minister were to retain the workshop for the purpose of ordinary maintenance, it is quite obvious that he would have to part with a great many of his skilled hands who had been trained in the workshop. Therefore, from his point it is eminently desirable, in order that these men should continue at the work at which they had become skilled, that he should hand over that workshop to others who could take orders from outside Government departments, and from other countries, and so continue those hands at that particular work. I am sure that when Deputy Johnson comes to consider the proposal of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, knowing that he, like other Deputies, is in favour of finding continuance of employment for workers, will agree that the policy of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is a very desirable one.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 26.

Tá

Pádraig Baxter.
Séamus Eabhróid.
Tomás Mac Eoin.
Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
Patrick J. Mulvany.
Tomás O Conaill.
Aodh O Cúlacháin.
Liam O Daimhín.
Eamon O Dubhghaill.
Donnchadh O Guaire.
Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Domhnall O Mocháin.

Níl

Richard H. Beamish.
Earnán de Blaghd.
Thomas Bolger.
Séamus Breathnach.
Seoirse de Bhulbh.
Louis J. D'Alton.
Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
Michael Egan.
Patrick McGilligan.
Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
Liam Mac Sioghaird.
Liam Mag Aonghusa.
Peadar O hAodha.
Mícheál O hAonghusa.
Seán O Bruadair.
Máirtín O Conalláin.
Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
Séamus O Dóláin.
Peadar O Dubhghaill.
Pádraig O Dubhthaigh. Aindriú O Láimhín.
Séamus O Leadáin.
Máirtín O Rodaigh.
Seán O Súilleabháin.
Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
Liam Thrift.

Tellers.—Tá:—Deputies Johnson and Gorey. Níl: Deputies Sears and Tierney.

Amendment declared lost.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 22 May 1925