This is to conclude the general discussion.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 61 (POST OFFICE).
Motion made.
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,662,850 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Roinne Puist agus Telegrafa, maraon le Telefóna.
That a sum not exceeding £1,662,850 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, including Telephones.
[Debate resumed.]
Do I understand that the Minister is about to conclude yesterday evening's debate?
We come to the sub-heads now.
I want to refer to some matters under sub-head A. I notice from the Estimates that there are shown to be borne on the Vote for officers in Classes 2 and 3, 2,377 auxiliary postmen who work not more than 35 hours per week, or, in other words, 2,377 part-time employees. In addition, I find 987 allowance deliverers, people who work not more than 18 hours per week, making a total of 3,364 part-time employees engaged in the delivery and collection of mails. Side by side with this figure I find that there are only 1,326 established postmen. I think that this is an opportune time to refer to the Post Office policy in connection with part-time employment. Here we have a statement showing that there are two and a half part-time employes to every one established officer. I think that that is a state of affairs that ought not in all equity be allowed to continue. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as the executive head of the Post Office, is responsible for this, and I would have liked to hear in his speech some reference to the question of abolishing this class of labour.
Attached to the Head Office in Dublin there are about 250 part-time employees. A considerable number of these do no more than three hours' work per day, during which they handle important registered letters and parcels, and in some cases actual cash, and are paid the munificent wage of 19/6 per week, less Unemployment and National Health Insurance contributions. With such men engaged in handling cash, registered letters and negotiable securities, is it any wonder that we find under another sub-head a provision for £12,000 for losses by default? Surely the Minister cannot expect to get trustworthy, honest men at a wage of 19/6 per week, less certain contributions. I think that that state of affairs ought not to be allowed to continue, and I am going to suggest to the Minister here, as I did in another place, that some of the ardour and enthusiasm he has shown for protection should be devoted to these 3,364 part-time badly-paid employees.
I think it is time that we had some declaration from the Minister as to what his policy is in this matter, and what he proposes to do to absorb these part-time employees. I would suggest that if he were to take an interest in the matter he would find it not at all impossible to organise the service in such a way as to provide full-time employment for all these people. There is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is, the deferment of the increments of post office officials who participated in the strike of September, 1922. That strike was settled largely on an assurance that there would be no victimisation. Following the resumption of work we were told that this assurance only meant no dismissals and that the Department was free to impose consequential victimisation. The increments of officers who participated in the strike were deferred by nineteen days, the period of the strike. That meant that an officer who was due for his increment, say, on the 1st January each year, had the increment deferred until the 19th January. It was not a loss in the first year only, but a loss that would be suffered by the officer every year until he reached the maximum of his class.
I say that that is a most ill-considered punishment, and I want the Dáil to observe the incidence of the punishment. In the case of an officer who was at the minimum of his scale it meant that he would suffer that loss every year until he reached his maximum. In the case of an officer who was half way up the scale, it only meant that he would suffer the loss for half the period, and an officer who was at the maximum got scot free of all punishment. But there is another aspect of this. Officers were told that that period would not be counted for pension purposes; that meant that those nineteen days would be deducted from their total services when going on pension. Now, nineteen days do not seem very much, but as only whole years of service count for pension it might mean that those nineteen days' deduction would break a complete year and that a man going on pension would be pensioned on a year's less service than he actually had. That punishment is a cause of resentment and, I think, of justifiable resentment.
I think that punishment has been imposed in the face of a very definite assurance that there would be no victimisation. I think that both on the grounds of honour and on the grounds of equity that the time has arrived when those incremental dates should be restored. It would take only a very small sum to do it. I think that the sum which would be expended in the restoration of the incremental dates would be a very small price to pay for the removal of discontent, distrust and resentment which is naturally felt at the imposition of such an ill-considered punishment. The Minister may tell me that a man who has not rendered services cannot be allowed to calculate days for pension or incremental purposes. I suggest to the Minister that if he looks at the postman's manual he will find provision for regarding those nineteen days as special leave without pay, and that these need not in consequence affect an officer's increment or his services for pension purposes. In the years 1920 and 1921 the Post Office workers went on strike for the purpose of associating themselves with a move which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—would have everyone believe then was quite a moral position deserving of whole-hearted support of the people. The British Government never attempted to allow those two days' absence to interfere with officers' pensions, and I think it does not speak well for the Minister's sense of fair play that he should stoop to do what the British Government in 1920 and 1921 refused to do.
There is another matter that I want to refer to. That is under sub-head A (3), the classification of the Waterford Post Office. Waterford is a city of 30,000 inhabitants and there are close on sixty sub-offices under the Waterford head-office. In 1911 the Waterford Post Office was reduced to a lower class than it occupied up to that date. That reduction was caused by the very serious blunder made by a Board of Trade official. Since then there has been re-classification of offices, but Waterford still remains in the lowest category. There are three classes of post offices in this country— 1, 2 and 3. Dublin is in Class 1; Limerick, Cork, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Bré and Cobh are in Class 2, and we find Ballyhaunis, Newbridge, Arklow and and Mountrath in Class 3. In other words, we find the post office in Waterford, a city with 30,000 inhabitants, in the same category as the post office in Ballyhaunis, Newbridge, Arklow and Mountrath. That is quite an anomalous position, and the anomaly is more obvious when we see places like Blackrock, Dún Laoghaire and Cobh in a higher classification than Waterford. Now the lower classification affects the rights of pay at Waterford, and it may be interesting to the Dáil to know that a postman at Waterford is only paid the same rate of wages as the postman at Hazlehatch or Celbridge. Notwithstanding that Waterford is a big city, the postmen there are only paid the same as at the sub-offices. I suggest to the Minister that that anomaly should not be allowed to continue, and I suggest that that matter might be considered and that Waterford should be given a classification which its importance in this State would merit. If there had been no change of administration, Waterford would long since have been placed in Class 2. I think Waterford should not suffer because there has been a change in the administration.
In sub-head A I find provision for payment of fees to medical officers and on that matter I want to refer to the position at Limerick. The post office officials are supposed to have free medical attendance though it only costs the Department 10/- per head per annum. At Limerick a most primitive system is in existence. Notwithstanding the fact that Limerick is a big city no medical officer can be got, locally, to look after the Post Office staff. The post office employs a dispensary medical officer at a place called Patrick's Well, seven miles from Limerick. Now, an officer may take suddenly ill, as has happened on a few occasions recently, and this medical officer at Patrick's Well has to be telephoned for and asked to come in. But as he has got a big district to look after it may mean he is seven miles away from the telephone when called. The result is that a local medical officer is called in to attend on the officer who has got ill, and that local officer charges the fee which would be payable to him by any person in a private capacity, but the Post Office Department jibs about paying it. They ask question upon question about it, and in the end, notwithstanding that the absence of the local medical officer is the fault of the Department the post office very often only pay a fraction of the amount. There again I suggest to the Minister that he should make some personal inquiry into this matter with a view to bringing that unsatisfactory condition of things to an end.
Under sub-head A (3) a sort of halfhearted attempt was made yesterday to deal with the question of the charges for the delivery of telegrams. We find that accounted for in page 251. There the whole cost of the delivery of telegrams is shown, and the amount collected outside of the limits more than pays for the whole messenger staff in the telegraph service, leaving a profit for the post office. The attitude of the Minister yesterday evening in promising to review the position was accepted by us as going a considerable way to meet us. If the promise of the Minister means that the whole position with regard to charges outside a certain limit is going to be reviewed with a view to their abolition we would be inclined to accept that. The Minister should also consider the question of making a refund to people for overcharges during the last three years. I imagine, however, that is a question for the Minister for Finance and not for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
What about retrospective legislation?
We know that as regards income tax, if demands have been made and paid that afterwards cannot be sustained, one can recover over a period of three years. The charges made here cannot, I suggest, be sustained. Under the Constitution of the Saorstát every citizen is guaranteed equal rights. It has been proved now that certain citizens have not been sharing these equal rights of citizenship, but actually have been contributing towards the provision of facilities for other citizens that are not accorded to themselves. If the Minister's statement means that he is prepared to review the whole position we are prepared to accept it and to allow this Vote to go through without any further criticism.
When speaking previously there was one matter I forgot to refer to. It deals with the case of what are described as redundant post office assistants, Grade B. I find a footnote at the end of page 248 which states that "there are 101 posts blocked by redundant post office assistants, Grade B." I am sorry that the Minister for Finance is not here. If he were perhaps there would be a little more expedition than there has been in dealing with this problem. In the post office reorganisation scheme it is provided that a certain class of officer should do a class of work which a higher-grade officer did formerly. There was a proposal made that those higher-class officers should be absorbed into the clerical grades. Some little thing has been done in that direction, but here we find that there are still 101 such officers employed blocking vacancies for officers of a lower class. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may not have heard before what I am now going to tell him, and I hope he will take an interest in the matter, that those in the redundant post office assistant class are paid at a maximum of 61/- per week basic wages, and the class that it is proposed will do their work in future are paid at a maximum of 48/- per week basic wages. Taking the present mean of both classes, there is a loss of about 30/- per week on the 101 officers who are retained on that work, notwithstanding the fact that it is provided in the post office reorganisation scheme that the work should be done by a lower-paid class. 30/- per week for 100 of these officers works out at £150 a week or £7,800 per annum. That is the cost of continuing this idea of allowing redundant officers to block vacancies which ought to be given to another and a lower class.
The Minister has told us that the reason these people cannot be absorbed is because the Department of Finance does not, apparently, see the need for dealing expeditiously with this matter. I suggest to the Minister that if he were to point out to the Department of Finance the financial saving which could be effected by dealing expeditiously with this matter that we might be able to get rid of these 101 redundant officers in a much shorter time than we were able to get rid of them in the past. This is a point that is well worthy of consideration by the Minister, especially in view of the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are announcing every other day the holding of examinations for outsiders for the clerical grades. The Minister might consider the question of placing these 101 well trained post office officials on the clerical grade, and thus avoid the necessity of holding those examinations and save this charge of close on £8,000 per annum incurred while these officers are employed on their present duties.
Deputy Gorey's reference to page 251— delivery messengers—was dealt with yesterday. These are regular messengers and not auxiliaries. It is true that there are 101 assistants Class B, still awaiting promotion, or, at any rate, within that class, and who may, at any time, be considered for promotion. It is doubtful if all of them will be promoted. A number of them— I cannot say offhand what percentage —will hardly merit promotion.
Is the Minister not aware that most of those officers are substituting officers of a higher grade than themselves, and that they are, therefore, eligible for promotion. How, in view of that, does he contend that they are not suitable for promotion?
Some are, most are not.
Most of them are employed on higher grade duties temporarily.
To suggest that the service is losing financially by not promoting these men within the post office is not correct. If there is no need to promote them then to do so would cost more money and would mean unnecessary payments. That is obvious. On the other hand, if the Minister for Finance should decide to waive the holding of open competitive examinations for clerical posts and to select from this particular force, I have no objection. That is his business. There has been trouble in Limerick with regard to the provision of medical attendance. That trouble is not confined to the post office. The medical men down there have, for some reason known to themselves, declined to accept the Government capitation grant and, because of that fact, we have to do in certain circumstances what Deputy Norton has said, go outside the city for consultation. I do not see much hope of overcoming that difficulty.
Will the Minister agree that officers who are obliged to call in the services of a private medical man will not be at any loss because of the fact that the post office is unable to make arrangements such as are made in other offices in the Saorstát?
I am not prepared to give any guarantee on that matter.
Will you look into it?
Yes. The classification of the Waterford post office was made prior to the Treaty. Classifications generally were based on the cost of living, as the Deputy is aware. It appears that the cost of living in Waterford city at that time was such as to justify its inclusion in Class 3. Whether conditions have altered in the interval or not I cannot say. I have got representations which I am prepared to consider from the staff down there. More than that I cannot promise. Any favourable recommendation of mine, if such were made, would of course, be subject to Finance approval. If I find the staff at Waterford is being discriminated against unduly I will take that into consideration. The stoppage of the incremental period of 19 days arising out of the strike is not traceable to any decision of mine alone. It is a Governmental decision, and I happen to share in that decision. Were the Government so inclined I believe it would be very difficult to arrive at any other. The period of service was definitely broken; no work was performed and no service rendered.
Would the Minister say if the same thing happened in 1920, when he sympathised with the action taken by the Irish working classes in connection with the Sinn Fein movement, was the period broken there?
I am not prepared for retrospective considerations. The fact is that the service in this particular case was broken to the extent of 19 days, and the Government that considered the matter decided that it should constitute broken service for incremental and pension purposes. That decision stands, and I doubt very much whether there is any prospect of altering it. There is nothing new in the position of unestablished postmen or part-time workers here. It is a continuation of a system that prevailed in the British time when finances were, I suppose, of less account than they are now. The same applies to part-time workers, but in their case we have made a very genuine effort within the last year or two to remove them, if they pass an examination, to the plane of appointees. I think we have lost no time in that direction. In a service like ours we must necessarily have a floating staff. Our work is of an erratic character and does not flow evenly at all times. On the other hand the regular staff, rightly or wrongly, insist that these abnormal flows in traffic must not be permitted to alter their line of living or their hours. Therefore we are called upon to keep at our disposal a small temporary force to meet emergencies. There is no prospect of dispensing with a force of that kind in its entirely. It will always remain a feature. I have no desire to see it an abnormal feature. In regard to unestablished postmen this system applies in England to-day as it applies here. Unestablished postmen are in the main part-time. They entered the service on definite conditions, and no prospect whatever of permanent employment was held out when they entered. I cannot see how the State could possibly bind itself to any permanency as regards their employment. Only during the last two years could the hours for these men have been varied. Much as I sympathise with the principle of permanency for workers, I see no prospect of departing from the set policy in this respect.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks it impossible, or whether he sees any prospect in the idea of amalgamating the two attendances of four hours each into one attendance, and giving one man full-time employment instead of having two men in a state of semistarvation doing each a half-day's work?
I do not see much objection to that one way or the other. If there is a case where that can be done I do not see any objection to it. Two half loaves may be better than one whole loaf or nothing.
If that principle were carried out we would be all on the half loaf. I suggest to the Minister he should make a personal inquiry into this whole problem with a view to reducing the proportion in which it exists to-day. During the past few years an endeavour has been made to do something with regard to two classes, auxiliary postmen and allowance deliverers. The extent of the endeavour so far as these two classes are concerned has been to offer 40 vacancies, although these classes number 3,700. At that rate of 40 in two years by what date will the total number be dealt with?
Part-time rural postmen form the overwhelming proportion of that number and they have no such claim.
Why should they have no such claim? Have they not a moral claim?
If Deputy Norton, with his great knowledge of the possibilities, would couple with the information he has given us to-day an indication as to how we are to get the substantial loss incurred in the running of the Post Office reduced, I think it would be of great assistance.
I want to raise a matter on sub-head H 2—"Losses by default, accidents, etc." I desire to refer to the methods of the Investigation Branch of the Post Office—in particular to the methods of one officer of that Branch. I am sure it must be within the Minister's recollection that complaints have been made against a particular officer of the Investigation Branch and the methods employed by that officer. My Union does not stand for condoning theft of any kind and I, as secretary of the Union, have refused to make representations on behalf of any person against whom there was any suspicion of dishonesty.
If dishonesty is going to be put down, it ought to be put down honestly and with clean hands. I suggest that clean methods are not being employed by this particular officer in putting down theft and dishonesty. It has been brought to my notice that quite a common method of approach adopted by this officer towards people suspected of dishonesty is to play the confidence trick upon them. He says to those people: "I have got to interview you. I am your friend; trust to me and confide in me. Make that statement and I will see you are all right in the end." The unfortunate person concerned makes a statement only to find himself all wrong in the end. Here is an extract from a letter I received:—"He told me that as the champion of ex-National Army men he would do all in his power to get me off with a severe reprimand." That is the type of confidence trick that is played on unsuspecting people around the country. The method of dealing with ex-Army men is: "I am an ex-National Army man, and if you make that statement, it does not matter how serious it looks, I will get you off in the end." In regard to other people the plea is slightly different, but the object is the same—to ensnare unsuspecting people.
I do not stand for the condonation of theft, and I am prepared to assist by every means in my power in putting it down and in making the Post Office a worthy servant of the nation. I suggest to the Minister that these third-degree methods ought not to be employed. I must acknowledge that certain officers of the investigation branch carry out their duties in a most courteous manner and I have no complaint against them. I venture to say the Minister has never received a complaint against them. There is, however, one officer in that branch who has such a warped sense of what is honest and what is fair play, that he ought to be put out of the investigation department as soon as possible. I suggest that a strict watch should be kept upon the reports of this officer, that he should be compelled to do the honest and right thing, and that he should not be allowed to go around the country ensnaring people into making statements for the purpose of hanging themselves, so to speak.
I do not want to associate myself with Deputy Norton's complaint because I know nothing of it. As regards losses by default, I would ask the Minister to give us some idea of the machinery adopted to prevent such losses. Looking through the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for 1924-25, I see that losses by default are mentioned there, and one item attracted my notice in particular. It refers to the misappropriation of official cash to the extent of £30 by a rural postman in Ballinacarrow. Ballinacarrow is a very small village; I know it well. I should think the total postal business done there would not reach probably more than £50 a year. I would like to know how a rural postman operating in such a very limited area as that—a man who, as Deputy Norton said on sub-head A, does not receive a very considerable salary—could manage to get £30 of official cash.
It seems to me that if rural postmen operating in very poor areas—areas where there is very little postal business—are placed in the position of handling sums of £30 there are bound to be losses by default. As a rule, these men are not highly paid. There is no possibility of selecting them through the medium of a selection board, such as the Civil Service Commission. If you are going to place sums amounting to £30 in the hands of postmen of that kind you are taking great risks.
Taking the Vote as a whole, I do not know if the losses by default are excessive, but I think the Minister should tell us something in regard to what machinery has been established to prevent such losses and whether it is necessary to adopt machinery such as Deputy Norton has suggested.
Can the Minister inform the House why it is that provision to the extent of £7,000 is made at this late stage for losses due to fires between July and November, 1922? The full provision mentioned here is £12,000, but £7,000 is for fires which took place four years ago. Why was not provision made earlier?
The postman referred to by Deputy Cooper would, in all probability have in his possession old age pension moneys. These are the only moneys which could have amounted to that sum in such a district.
The £12,000 referred to by Deputy Wilson is divided into two distinct categories. The sum of £7,000 is inherited from the fire plague period, during which a number of our premises were destroyed. It should be remembered that a great many documents were burned during these fires. Savings Bank books, deposit receipts, and valuable documents essential for proof in applications for withdrawals of money were wholly or partly destroyed. These documents are being patched together with very great difficulty, and the resultant finances which we are called upon to meet will go on, perhaps in decreasing quantity, but will last over some years to come. That is the explanation.
Has that particular reference to the burning of the Rink?
Not merely to the Rink, but to many other buildings destroyed during that time. The Rink was one of several buildings destroyed. That would leave about £5,000 to meet all kinds of risks. I cannot say offhand how many millions or tens of millions are handled annually by the Post Office, but there is a considerable sum. If we take a small margin, say of £5,000 as a contingency, we are not overstepping the mark. We have to face a number of defaulters through one form or another, as will be observed by those who take the trouble to read the police court proceedings in different parts of the country. That is not all. We are also aware that often in the present apparently peaceful state of the country raids on the mails are not unusual, or at least, perhaps I should say, are not unknown. We have got to meet this. We have not put this £5,000 aside for the sake of holding it up or of keeping it warm, but because we believe it is a sum that will meet the requirements of the nature I have stated.
Many Deputies from time to time have come to me over the failure of the Post Office to make compensation to people who transmitted money through the post in one form or another. In some cases I have succeeded in having repayments made in full or in part. In others I have failed to do so. In nearly all cases the victims were normally poor people. Perhaps the stolen letters sometimes contained their total savings. I have had some very sad cases before me, and these cases were undoubtedly very numerous two or three years ago. Complaints came from different quarters, even from religious societies that had money flowing into them as charity, that a sense of insecurity had crept in. In that situation I was compelled to take extraordinary steps to purify the service. I had to get rid of a great many people who were, undoubtedly, helping themselves to public property, and I was very glad to have placed at my disposal the officer to whom the Deputy refers. Now in the interval this officer has dealt with over 250 cases. One hundred of these have resulted in the dismissal of the persons concerned, and over 100 in imprisonment. Of these 250 cases some were of a very bad character, and were particularly difficult for any intelligence officer to investigate.
There were cases, for instance, where assistants in post offices helped their friends in regard to the timing of betting telegrams—a very serious crime. Whether we sympathise with the bookie, or not, we must give him a square deal in matters of this kind. There were cases of that kind, and these were merely typical, and it is extraordinary how people, in such circumstances, are prepared to swear black is white—it is no trouble to them whatever. If a case goes against them, then in desperation they fall back on the plea that a trap was laid for them by the Investigating Officer.
I have had only seven complaints of that character out of these 200 cases. I submit that seven is not a high percentage. Any man doing difficult— call it, if you like, dirty work—of this type is open to accusations of unfair dealing. They have been made, in the past, against people in this position, and they will be made, in the future. I want to assure Deputy Norton that, in every one of these cases, I take the final responsibility. No dismissal materialises without my signature. I read all the papers and I, very often, reverse cases even where that officer is concerned. In no case can the officer get away with unfairness, even assuming he tries to. I go so far as to assert that that is true.
I am satisfied that this officer has done very good service to the State. I will not absolutely swear that he may not have, at some one time, overstepped the mark. I am not aware of it, and I say he has rendered very valuable service in clearing up a pretty dirty situation and making the Post Office safe for the transmission of public property.
I am not making any complaint whatever against the punishment imposed upon persons for any offence that can be put into the category of dishonesty. I am complaining about the methods employed by this particular officer.
You cannot be too nice about this class of thing.
This officer could be as nice and as courteous as the other branch officer. Has the Minister got seven complaints against the other officer? I venture to say the other officer is as good and as efficient, even though he does not know as many shady tricks, as this other. Deputies might be inclined to take what the Minister said about this officer at its face value. I do not. I know the officer and some of the Minister's own officials, in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, know perfectly well the many complaints made against him. They may not have come to the Minister's ear but they were made. I could give the Minister a case here and I could bring half-a-dozen of other cases to-morrow to show the methods employed by this officer. I think they are altogether wrong. I would like the Minister to take steps to ensure that this officer carries out his duty fairly and squarely and that he should not exploit people and that he should be made to behave as the other investigation officer and to employ clean methods.
If the Deputy can prove any unfair methods are used, at any time, he can rest assured that I will not stand them. I think that is good enough.
The Minister has not answered my question. I asked what machinery existed to prevent defalcations by postmen. He replied by saying that in the particular case I had mentioned the money was old age pension money. My point is, that if you entrust men paid below the ordinary scale with money amounting, in the case I quoted, to six months' wages, you ought to create some machinery by which you can assure yourself that that man will not make away with that money. I do not know whether it would be possible in the postal service to introduce fidelity guarantees; in any case great care should be taken in engaging postmen who will have to be entrusted with thirty or forty or fifty pounds in money. You should not engage any boy of eighteen years of age who applies with no bond to hold him to his work. It will be better to take a man with a wife and family who will be attached to the place. It is not fair to make a man who is only getting £1 or £1 10s. a week, responsible for large sums of money unless careful machinery for check and supervision exists.
took the Chair.
This is not a new vote. It has gone on from year to year, and I infer from that that the machinery is not perfect, and I ask the Minister if he cannot do something to improve upon it.
The Minister said that in some cases a person was able to get a refund of the money lost while going through the post. Am I to understand from that that he will consider cases of losses which are not governed by the regulations, such, for instance, as a man posting current notes or a registered letter containing money in the shape of notes and lost in transit. Would he be prepared to refund in cases of that kind, or what is this £5,000 for? If it is to meet some loss, what exactly does that loss consist of?
If a registered letter is lost, and if it fulfills the conditions laid down in the Post Office regulations, then a certain payment will be made. The main part of that loss is covered by the provisions of these regulations. On the other hand, if a person should post notes in an ordinary envelope——
In a registered envelope.
If the registered envelope is an official envelope we pay according to the extent of the registration. On the other hand, if it is not a registered envelope, the option to pay or not to pay rests with us. When I quote this it may seem strange——
Even if it is registered?
Even if it is registered. Even though that seems strange we have simply continued a system which has always prevailed in England, and which the English have stood solidly on and refused to budge, because of the many traps that lay in the way in regard to it. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration of late, and I have caused a notification to be sent to all departments providing that people desirous of posting registered letters should be requested to utilise the official envelope. That will not cover all cases. It has sometimes happened that letters containing coin and notes are posted through the ordinary pillar box, and detected in the course of transmission. I do not see much hope for a case of that kind. The fact that they are picked up in the post, registered and transmitted, is a safeguard in itself.
Deputy Cooper wants to know why it is not possible to get greater guarantees against defalcations of the character to which he has referred. The loss of £30 is a comparatively small thing. Mail car drivers very often— possibly once a week—find in their possession, not £30, but perhaps £30,000, in some cases—transmitting money from one bank to another for fair purposes. These officers do not receive even as much pay as postmen. I do not see any possibility of guaranteeing people that we employ for the carriage of mails containing money. Fidelity guarantees are all right for people who earn large salaries, but I doubt if a man earning twenty-five shillings or thirty shillings a week would be inclined to rise to the spirit of the occasion.
Do rate collectors earn large salaries?
Very large, in comparison with the subjects under discussion.
Would the Minister consider that a living wage is about the best fidelity bond?
Sitting suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.35 p.m.,AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.
I move to reduce sub-heads I, K and L by £6,000. Taken together, they are the Engineering Vote for the Post Office. I would refer Deputies to page 254 of the Estimates where, in Appendix F there is shown the total cost of the Engineering Department under its various heads—telegraphs, telephones, and so on. I have moved this amendment in order to obtain an explanation of the increase in this Vote. In 1924 the actual expenditure on this Vote was £216,842. That was the year in which there had been great devastations created in the postal service; telegraph poles had been cut down, wires had been destroyed, and so on. But £216,000 was enough to pay for engineering services. Last year the Estimate was £260,000, an increase of £44,000, and this year the Estimate is £266,000, a further increase of £6,000. I am moving to take off that £6,000, unless the Minister can show why an increased expenditure under this head is necessary.
Looking at the Table that I have referred Deputies to, on page 264, you will see that the cost of maintenance of telegraphs and telephones has been considerably reduced. If Deputies refer to previous years they will see that the cost of maintenance of telegraphs has been reduced by nearly £2,000, and the cost of maintenance of telephones has been reduced by more than £11,000. But there is a marked increase under the heading of renewals, re-arrangements, etc., which have swallowed up the saving on maintenance and increased the Estimates. The increase in regard to telephones was £11,400. It more or less cancels the saving on maintenance. But in regard to telegraphs the disparity is very much more marked. The saving on telegraphs was nearly £2,000, but the increase in renewals and re-arrangements was £8,000. Yet, the Minister told us yesterday that telegraphs were being used very much less than they were. On renewals and re-arrangements of telegraphs, there is an increase of £6,000. The Minister told us yesterday that people are sending much fewer telegrams than they used to. Would he tell us why renewals and re-arrangements on this scale have become necessary? Would he also tell us if they could possibly be deferred? I do not doubt that any engineer who had examined the telegraphs of the State would say we want certain renewals. An engineer looks at the matter from a professional point of view, but we must look at the matter from a business point of view. I think the Minister, last Sunday, tried to imagine me as the director of a company. The invitations that I have had to become a director of a company have not been alluring ones. The company has generally been one that I felt no confidence in. But I will ask the Minister now to look on himself as the Director of the Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones Company, and say whether some of this expenditure on renewals and re-arrangements could not, in view of the financial position, be postponed to another year, and whether we could not save £6,000 on this Vote.
In the case of telephones clearly the greater the expansion the greater the cost of maintenance. That is accepted. Our telephone system has expanded very rapidly and with that extended service we have got to face not only increased expenditure for maintenance but an increased expenditure for renewals. I trust that that brief explanation is satisfactory as far as telephones are concerned.
There is no increase in maintenance of telephones over last year.
I understood the Deputy to say that there was. I have not the figures before me for last year.
The estimate for the maintenance of telephones last year was £73,000. This year it is £61,000. The estimate for renewals and re-arrangements last year was £60,000 and this year is £71,000. While the Minister is speaking about maintenance, the Deputy was speaking about re-arrangements and renewals.
In either case, in respect of renewals and re-arrangements, the same argument applies. That argument applies to telephones clearly. It does not happen to be compared with last year, but it might conceivably be. As a matter of fact, one would expect it should be, because of the increased service, but in the case of renewals and re-arrangements I am satisfied that our engineering department is not spending money unnecessarily in this direction. It should be remembered that failure to spend money might often result, not in a saving, but the other way round. It is very essential in a service like ours to keep the machinery up to a high pitch, and the public are not prepared to have faulty material experimented on. In the telegraphs, this particular increase might be traced to the introduction of an instrument called the tele-type, a class of time-saving instrument which is very effective in the transmission, not only of news, but of ordinary telegrams. We have introduced it to Waterford, and we intend introducing it elsewhere. It is an expensive instrument, but it will prove a saving ultimately. On the other hand, as I stated yesterday, we are displacing telegraphs by telephones in a great many instances. I expect that displacement will come under the heading of telegraphs rather than telephones.
Where telegraphs touch an office which is a single office, in other words, a lone office on a wire, we are concentrating on developing the telephone system and leaving the telegraphs— utilising the telephones for the dual purpose of telegrams and public telephones. It should also be remembered that the fact of an item under the engineering section showing an increase in one particular year over a previous year—at least a section of that item— merely means that it is quite possible that in one particular year our engineering department may be more free to devote time to, let us say, telegraphic rectification than in another year. Our technical staff is very limited, and we may find that during a particular year that staff is practically solely engaged on a heavy job. When that job is finished—it may be a telephone job—we can, perhaps, switch them on to telegraphs not having another telephone job in readiness. Variations in expenditure of this kind are always taking place, and always will take place. I am satisfied that there is full justification—I have gone into these items very fully with the engineering department—for the Vote set down here.
The Minister made a series of very interesting generalisations, but he has not given any definite or positive reason why the Vote for the engineering department should be £6,000 more than it was last year, and £50,000 more than it was for the year before that. He says we are introducing new machinery. The justification he made was that new machinery, in the form of renewals and re-arrangements, was being introduced into the Telegraph Department. I would suggest to the Dáil that we should not spend money in introducing new machinery into the telegraphs, because I believe that the telegraph, if not obsolete is, at any rate, becoming obsolete. The Minister said that yesterday.
Only in certain respects. I made it very clear that the telegraph is not becoming obsolete in the case of long distance transmission for Press or private telegrams. I think it will hold its own for many a day. Remember we must keep in line with the times in regard to the replacement of instruments and the introduction of the most modern instruments. Take a case in point. Supposing that the British Post Office desired to introduce the tele-type instrument for intercommunication with Dublin, it would be difficult for us to resist, if a pretty good case was put up, showing economy in time, and economy in money. We have to march with the times and, generally speaking, any increase that we request in regard to engineering is merely an increase, which we feel justified in calling for, to keep our staff working for that particular period. We will go on looking for increases year by year. I anticipate that this increase will expand very much within the next three or four years, and I trust that nobody here will disagree with legitimate development in regard to telephones.
I am not speaking about telephones at all. I am speaking about telegraphs, and I believe that telegraphs, except for long distance ocean cable, are becoming obsolete. Ten years hence I believe that where there is a telegraph wire hanging on poles along a country road, people will look at it in the same way that they look at a sedan chair moving down the middle of Grafton Street. The Minister, and everyone else, knows that wireless is supplanting all these forms of communication. Ten days ago I was able to sit down in County Dublin and hear the British Prime Minister talking very much more clearly than I ever heard him talk in the House of Commons. The wire is going out of fashion. It is folly to believe that we are going to send telegrams over a wire when wireless communication is being developed. I ask Deputies to remember that five years ago we would have thought it insanity to believe that a man talking in London or Paris could be clearly heard in Dublin, and at no excessive cost. I have only a small wireless set that cost £15 15s. altogether, and I have heard people talking clearly in Paris. That process is going to be developed, and therefore we should be very slow in sinking money in machines that may be rendered obsolete in a year or two years. Last year the Minister found £33,000 enough for his renewals and re-arrangement of the telegraph service. I am not limiting him to £33,000. I would allow him £35,000, but I say that we should restrict the Minister in respect to these renewals of the telegraph service, because it is a very doubtful matter whether, within the next four or five years, the telegraph will not be superseded altogether.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 34.
Tá.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tadhg O Donnobháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Máighread Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- David Hall.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Martin M. Nally.
- William Norton.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Cooper and Baxter; Níl: Deputies Dolan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 2—to reduce sub-head M by £14,000. Sub-head M represents charges in respect of the debt created under the Telegraphs Act, 1892-1921, and the Telephone Capital Act, 1924. I should like to remind the Dáil that we stand in a peculiar position in regard to this item. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has really more power than any Minister in the State, except, perhaps, the Minister for Finance, because he has inherited powers under certain British Acts which enable him to pledge the credit of the State. Those British Acts were based on the assumption, which was usually true, that the Postmaster-General, being one of the minor posts in the Cabinet, would be selected for negative qualities, that he would be what I have heard called a "negative slug," a praiseworthy man who always voted right, never had an original idea and contributed to Party funds. That was the British case. It is not our case. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has an active and energetic mind. We have to get up early in the morning to keep track of his arguments and, therefore, the liability imposed upon our revenue is likely to be more serious than if we had a Minister who only did what his permanent officials advised him.
In respect of Telephone capital, the Minister can borrow money under the British Acts without informing anybody except the Minister for Finance. The Dáil need not be informed. The Minister has borrowed money and will borrow money and the only opportunity we have of reviewing this expenditure is on this estimate, whereby we pay the interest on the money that he has borrowed. The annuities incurred in respect of this money that he has borrowed were just over £11,000 in the estimates for 1925. The actual expenditure in 1924 was £3,200. Now the figure is £25,490. Obviously, money is being borrowed at a considerable rate. It may be that that is justifiable, though when one contrasts the amount borrowed since 1922—£25,000—with the number of new telephones installed in the State since 1922—which the Minister said yesterday was approximately four thousand—it appears that every new telephone is costing £6. That is probably an average figure. I do not think you could make out an estimate of the cost of every telephone because much depends on the amount of wire you have to use in connecting it with the exchange.
It may be worth spending £6 for every telephone—£25,000 in all—to connect the remoter parts of Carndonagh and other bailiwicks in Inish-owen with metropolitan civilisation. It may even cause them to keep in closer touch with the actions of their Deputies in the Dáil. The money may be well spent, but I should like to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs justify this expenditure. Two years ago he was spending £11,000. This year he wants to spend £25,000. That is an increase of £14,000. Possibly it is justifiable, but I would like the Minister to tell us what is his programme of telephone expansion, and also what further charges we are likely to incur under this head. We must, in the long run, cut our coat according to our cloth. We must ultimately decide how much we can afford to expend on telephone development, and ascertain what return we shall receive by way of guarantees, fees, and so on. I thought that this was a matter which the Dáil ought to consider, and, therefore, I put down this amendment, not in any hostile spirit, but in order to get information from the Minister as to the policy of his Department and the programme of telephone development he intends to adopt.
In the estimates of receipts and expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1927, there is down on page 7, section C, for advances under the Telephone Acts to provide telephone capital, £357,000. That is £147,000 more than last year. The provision last year was £210,000. That difference in capital is £147,000, and yet the provision in the Estimates reaches £14,000. It certainly does need explanation as to what is the rate per cent. and what is the Sinking Fund provision. I support Deputy Cooper in looking for the information sought.
The interest paid on the capital is 5 per cent., the capital to be repaid in 15 years. The reason for the apparently rapid expansion in 1924-25 over 1923-24 is to be found in the fact that 1923-24 was the year in which our engineering staff was largely employed in making good the civil war destruction. As a matter of fact, the first real departure in telephone extension began in 1924-25. It extended in 1925-26 to the figure of £357,000, and it is likely to go higher next year. None of this money is obtained by my Department for the mere asking. Details of every scheme contemplated have got to be submitted, in the first instance, to the Minister for Finance, examined, re-examined, and, finally, approved or disapproved. It is not correct to say that I get so many hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend in any way I like. No such thing applies to this Vote. Our greatest difficulty is to get the Finance Department to sanction schemes with sufficient rapidity to keep us going. As a matter of fact, it is rather the other way round. I can assure the Deputy that in any telephone or telegraph scheme involving any appreciable sum of money, the money is not at my disposal to spend in my own way.
I think I indicated that the Minister was controlled by the Finance Department. The fact remains, however, that except on this particular Vote for interest, the Dáil has no say. The Department of Finance may have very considerable control, but the Oireachtas, representing the people, has no say in relation to this creation of debt under the Telephones Act, other than the opportunity that is given on this particular Vote. Deputy Wilson has very rightly called attention to the considerable increase in debt that has been incurred, and the Minister has not given any general expression of policy to justify that increase of over £100,000 of debt. I think it was obvious last night that there was a demand for the extension of telephone facilities. The extension of these facilities must be made a business proposition. In the present financial position of the State we cannot afford, unless there is some other indirect reason, such as the necessity for giving the Gárda telephones, to provide unremunerative telephone facilities. The Minister has added to the debt under this head upwards of £100,000, and he has added to the interest by upwards of £14,000. I suggest that he should give us a more detailed description of what the telephone policy of the State is, before we would be justified in voting this amount.
I take it that when the Minister says that the debt is to be repaid in fifteen years, that that provision plus the interest means 10 per cent. on the capital. That is what it works out at. The new capital is £147,000, and 5 per cent. on that would be only about £7,000. Therefore when you make provision for £14,400 it means that you must put by yearly a sum of £7,000 as Sinking Fund. The Minister has not explained it, and I would like to hear from him how it works out.
I think that Deputy Wilson has pretty well explained the matter. He points out that the increase in this case must involve an increased borrowing expenditure of £147,000, and 5 per cent. on that is £7,000. There is also the annuity which accounts for the balance. Deputy Cooper will remember that this telephone capital expenditure was provided for by an Act of this House. It was duly discussed here, and I do not suppose that he desires that it should be re-enacted and re-discussed. If he were in my boots and had to run the numerous and difficult gauntlets which I have to run in getting the sanction of the Finance Department, I think he would conclude very early in his experiences that it would be much better if these difficulties were decreased. If Deputies want me to go over the whole ground in regard to telephone development again I will be pleased to do so, but I rather thought that I talked too long last night and that I gave some facts and figures which, in the opinion of some Deputies, were bewildering.
I would be satisfied if the Minister discussed that point with me in a private session.
Question put and negatived.
In regard to sub-head N, I want to raise a question of delay in paying superannuation allowances. I have in mind a case of an officer who, before his retirement, was ill for a considerable time, and thereby incurred considerable medical expense. He has now been superannuated for ten weeks, but yet there is no sign of the amount due to him under the Superannuation Acts being paid. I know that it is not the fault of the Post Office Department, but I mention the matter simply because the Minister for Finance is here. The Post Office Department prepares the forms and submits them to the Department of Finance. The amount allowed is calculated in accordance with a formula, and yet it takes ten weeks, and perhaps more, to pay the amount, although it can be calculated in ready-reckoner fashion. Ten weeks is an unreasonable time to allow to elapse before payment is made, and it imposes considerable hardship on an officer who has had considerable medical expenses already. I think some efforts ought to be made by the Finance Department to come to a decision in something less than ten weeks, especially when the amount can easily be calculated.
It is very likely that the case is exceptional.
It is typical of many.
I do not think that there are many cases of the kind.
The Secretary of the Post Office has had representations made to him by the Postal Officials Union.
If the officer concerned applied for something in advance his application would be considered. If the Deputy gives me the facts of the case I will be pleased to have them investigated. Perhaps if he puts down a question it may be more satisfactory.
Representations have already been made and it was stated that if he applied he would get an advance.
If the Deputy puts down a question I will give him as full and frank an answer as I can, but I know nothing about the case at the moment.
Vote put and agreed to.