Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 1931

Vol. 38 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 62—Posts and Telegraphs.

The President

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,451,775 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Puist agus Telegrafa agus Seirbhísí áirithe eile atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le Telefóna.

That a sum not exceeding £1,451,775 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, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and of certain other Services administered by that Office, including Telephones.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Heffernan)

The estimated expenditure for the year 1931-32 is £2,201,775. The estimated expenditure for the past financial year was £2,246,795. There is, therefore, a reduction of £45,020 Estimated revenue for the year is £1,831,031.

The actual financial position can only be ascertained from the commercial accounts. The last published commercial accounts are those for the year ended the 31st March, 1929. They show a loss for that year of £191,357. We have, however, available departmentally the estimated figures for our commercial accounts for the year ended the 31st March, 1931. They indicate a loss of approximately £110,000. It is evident, therefore, that we are approaching the position where the operations of this Department will be self-supporting, and a subsidy from the taxpayer will no longer be required.

Two of our three services, postal and telephone, are now on a paying basis. An initial loss of over £1,100,000 has been reduced by £1,000,000. The existing financial position has largely been brought about by a continuous and exacting scrutiny of every item of expenditure, and, in consequence, our demands on the taxpayer, which have become smaller and smaller each year, are now nearing the vanishing point. It was necessary in the earlier years of the new administration to make such adjustments and curtailments of services as would more economically fit in with the postal needs of this country, but the limit of retrenchment in that direction has been reached for some time past. In recent years we are constantly reviewing and examining the various services with the view and desire of improving facilities wherever the circumstances are found to justify such a course.

The main variations in the sub-heads are accounted for as follows:—Subhead A (2), A (3) and A (4)—salaries, wages, etc., metropolitan, provincial and stores staff: Decrease, £10,520; due mainly to fall in the cost-of-living bonus. Sub-head D—purchase of sites: Increase of £3,300; due to provision for the purchase of sites at Donegal, Letterkenny, and Pearse Street. Sub-head E (5)—packet services, British, foreign and colonial: Increase, £5,700; due to increased provision for conveyance of mails. Sub-head G (1)—stores, other than engineering: Due to reduced requirements and to general economies. Sub-head H (2)—losses by default: Increase, £2,400; due to abnormal losses which may arise owing to defalcations at one office now the subject of legal proceedings. Sub-head I (1)—salaries, wages, etc., engineering establishment: Decrease, £4,492; due to fall in cost-of-living bonus and to certain restrictions in expenditure. Sub-head L (3)—contract work: Decrease, £25,185; due to reduced requirements and to economies. Sub-head M (2)—telephone development: Increase, £6,089; due to increased charge for repayment of capital borrowing. Sub-head N (1)— superannuation allowances: Increase, £6,500; due to increased charges, offset by certain small decreases. Sub-head N (2)—annual compensation under Article X of Treaty: Decrease, £42,510; majority of compensation claims have been disposed of. Sub-head N (4)—agency payments: Decrease, £4,800; provision not required this year. Sub-head T—appropriation-in-aid: Decrease £25,735; due to (a) inclusion in last year's Estimates of anticipated receipt of £18,500, adjustment of railway subsidy, (b) reduction of £4,990 in respect of claims arising out of the Wigg-Cochrane agreement, and (c) minor adjustments. The saving in the whole Estimates due to reduction in cost-of-living bonus is £17,191.

I will now deal with the three main services.

Postal:—According to the Estimated Commercial Accounts for the year 1930-31 an estimated profit of £16,500 is shown on this section. This compares with a loss of £19,392 last year. Revenue has increased and Expenditure decreased. For the first time in its history the Postal service here has been established on a paying basis. This is a satisfactory achievement. The services rendered to the public are being constantly reviewed. Increased deliveries have been afforded in cases where circumstances have altered. Steps have been taken to expedite transmission of mail matter in many respects. A commemorative stamp, marking the completion of the Shannon Scheme, was issued last year. Sanction has been given for a 2d. issue in celebration of the bi-centenary of the Royal Dublin Society, It is being designed by an Irish artist, and the work in connection with its production will be carried out in the Irish Free State. An issue of a Eucharistic Congress stamp will be made next year.

Telegraphs:—This is now the only service under this Department working at a loss. The Estimated Deficit is £127,400 compared with £147,955 in 1929. Expenditure has decreased, but revenue also shows a decrease. In this, as in other countries similarly situated, the telegraph service cannot be made self-supporting. Traffic formerly borne by it has been diverted to the telephones, but despite its decreased use by the public it still has to be maintained as a necessary emergency service. Our losses now appear to be approaching stabilisation point, and it seems probable that a deficit must be accepted as a burden on the other services operated by this Department.

Telephones:—The Estimated Commercial Accounts for 1930-31 indicate that telephone revenue and expenditure are now about breaking even. We are pleased that this has taken place (for the first time), and it is to be hoped this section of our Department will in the future continue to maintain itself as a paying proposition. As telephone progress has been explained fully during the discussion on the Telephone Capital Bill, it is not necessary to examine it in detail now. I am satisfied, however, following careful personal enquiry, that the quality of the service rendered the public continues to improve. Complaints are fewer, and the value of the telephone as a business asset is more and more appreciated by users.

Mr. Lemass

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the most recent publication of the commercial accounts of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was in respect of the year 1928-29. It seems to us entirely unsatisfactory that Deputies should have to come to the consideration of the work of this Department on accounts which are two years old. We have had occasion in the past to make complaint concerning delay in publication of these accounts, and we think it would be a good thing if the Department would try to speed them up. There can surely be no reason why such a long delay should occur between the completion of the financial year and the presentation of the audited accounts to the Dáil. The Parliamentary Secretary has frequently asked the House to consider the work of his Department as it would consider the work of a commercial concern, because his Department bears, in many respects, close similarity to a commercial concern. It is obviously impossible to do that unless the accounts are available for examination. The importance of the rapid publication of these accounts will, I think, be more clearly understood when I show that, in some respects, figures given here by the Parliamentary Secretary in the past were found, when the accounts were published, to be incorrect.

The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that the Estimate for his Department this year shows a net decrease of £45,000. That decrease is, however, entirely accounted for by reductions in expenditure which are outside the Parliamentary Secretary's control, such as automatic reduction in the cost of living bonus consequent on the fall in the cost of living index figure; a decrease of £42,500 in compensation allowance payable under Article X; a decrease of £2,800 in the amounts of repayment to the British Government in respect of such compensation, and a further decrease of £4,800 in respect of agency payments in regard to compensation allowances. The total of such decreases exceeds the total decrease in the Estimate. In so far as the items directly under the control of the Department are concerned, there has been an increase. It is satisfactory to know that the postal branch of the Department is now on a paying basis.

We expressed the opinion some years ago that it was possible to put it upon that basis. We trust that the course of action which has been adopted, following upon our criticism, and which has achieved the object we foretold, will be continued, so that it will become possible in due course to effect a reduction of charges which will put us upon the same basis as Great Britain. I understand that a reduction in the ordinary postage rate from 2d to 1½d would cost approximately a quarter of a million. There is no prospect yet of such a reduction being made except at the cost of the taxpayer, to a large extent. Under present circumstances it is unlikely that any section of the Dáil would agree to the taxpayer being asked to bear a heavier burden for that purpose.

In relation to telegraphs, the situation is still serious, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us. That branch of the Department continues to produce a large annual deficit. The deficit for last year, as given by the Parliamentary Secretary, is in excess of the total loss on the entire Department. The taxpayer is being asked to find the sum of approximately £110,000 this year in order to meet the loss on that particular branch. We are not satisfied that a loss of that magnitude is necessary. It will be remembered that about two years ago the ordinary charge for telegrams was increased by 6d. It was estimated by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister for Finance that the increased charge would produce a saving of approximately £66,000 per year.

In the year following the imposition of that increased charge the Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with the Estimate, gave to the House certain figures which he alleged indicated that the estimate of the Minister for Finance and himself had, in fact, been borne out. It was not possible for us at the time to check those figures, and on the Parliamentary Secretary's word we had to take them as accurate. Since then the commercial accounts for that year were published, and I, for one, was astonished to find that many of the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary were not correct, and that the estimates of the Minister for Finance had not been realised. I am going to show that what I say is correct. The Parliamentary Secretary, referring to the effect of the increased charge, as reported in Volume 29, column 2010, said that in 1927-28—that is the last year in which the old charge was operating—the expenditure under the head of telegraphs was £378,016, and in 1928-29, the year in which the increased charge came into operation, the expenditure was £355,100, showing a decrease in expenditure of £22,916.

I have taken the commercial accounts of the Department for those two years and I have calculated the expenditure and found that the totals in each year differed considerably from those given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I take it that the total expenditure represents the aggregate of the amounts paid in respect of administration expenses, maintenance of the system, rents, rates, maintenance and repairs of buildings, pension liability, depreciation provision and the cost of renewals. The total of such expenditure, as shown in the commercial accounts for the year 1927-28, was not £378,016, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, but £373,712. The total of such expenditure in 1928-29 was not £355,100, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, but £376,297. Instead of there being a decrease in expenditure of £22,916, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, there was, in fact, an increase in expenditure of £2,585. So much for expenditure. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the same statement, continued as follows:—"The revenue for 1927-1928 was £223,733, and the revenue in 1928-29 was £223,610, showing a decrease of £123."

The Parliamentary Secretary was correct in the figure which he gave for revenue in the first year, but he was incorrect in the figure which he gave for revenue in the second year. The figure which he gave for the second year was £223,610, whereas the figure in the commercial accounts was £220,219. Instead of the decrease in revenue being merely £123 it was, in fact, £3,514. The Parliamentary Secretary then continued, and said: "The loss on the telegraph service for the year 1927-28 was £154,283. The loss on the same service in 1928-29 was £131,490, showing a decrease in the loss of £22,793." The actual figures as shown by the commercial accounts are as follows:—The loss for 1927-28 was £149,979, and for 1928-29 was £156,078, showing not a decrease in the loss but an increase in the loss of £6,099. As I have said, the increased charges for telegrams were estimated to effect a saving in a full year of £66,000. The charge did not, in fact, come into operation until the 1st of August, and operated therefore only for eight months of the financial year. The saving during the eight months should have been two-thirds of the full amount, or £44,000. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that a saving of that amount was in fact achieved. He said that in the first three months of the financial year a loss of revenue of £5,900 was shown, which would have meant a loss on the full year of £17,700 if the increased charge had not been made, whereas he proceeded, the actual loss was, in fact, nil.

He took in addition to that £17,700 the figure he gave of the decrease in expenditure attributable to decreased traffic following the increased charges—£20,000—and he proceeded to add these two figures together and got £37,700. In order to make up his £44,000, therefore, he said that he attributed a considerable part of the increased revenue from telephones to the increased charges and took credit for £8,000 which he added to his previous £37,700, getting a total of £45,700. He gave that figure to the Dáil as the actual saving, effected by the increased charge for telephones which he said more than justified the estimate given by himself and the Minister for Finance when the Bill making the increased charge was before the House. What do we find was the actual position? We must take the Parliamentary Secretary's figure concerning the increase in the loss during the first three months in the year. It is not possible to check that figure from the commercial accounts. We have got to take the Parliamentary Secretary's word for that. We must assume that the loss for the full year would have been £17,700 if the increased charge had not been made, but assuming that that figure is correct we find that the actual increase in the loss was £3,514, which, therefore, we must deduct from that £17,700, leaving us in that respect with a net saving of £14,200. I have shown that instead of a decrease in expenditure of £20,000 there was in fact an increase of £2,585. We must add that.

The third item which the Parliamentary Secretary took into consideration was the increased revenue from telephones. On examining the accounts I found that between 1925-26 and 1926-27 telephone revenue increased by 5.8 per cent.; between 1926-27 and 1927-28 telephone revenue increased by 7.2 per cent.; between 1927-28 and 1928-29, the year with which we are concerned now, telephone revenue increased by 9.9 per cent. The increase in the latter year, therefore, does not appear to be abnormal. Nevertheless, if we allow the Parliamentary Secretary's figure of £8,000 as the proportion of the increased telephone revenue, which might be attributed to the increased charge for telephones, we get this result: the loss of revenue represents £14,200, less an increase in expenditure £11,600, plus the increased telephone revenue £8,000, giving us a total of £19,600 or, on the basis of a full year, £29,400 and not the £66,000 estimated by the Minister and said to have been realised by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the increased telephone revenue is left out of account the saving on the basis of a full year was only £16,400.

I submit that it is a serious thing, the Dáil having passed an Act involving an increased charge for the public services, if the Minister responsible, coming to the House for the purpose of justifying such action, gives figures which, on examination, cannot be shown to hold water. The Parliamentary Secretary set out to prove here that the Estimate made had been realised in full. The commercial accounts for these two years, now available to Deputies but not available then, show that the Estimate had not been realised even to the extent of fifty per cent. I would remind Deputies that included in that figure, £19,600, as the actual saving secured in that year, are figures which the Dáil has no means of checking. They are based entirely on estimates of the Parliamentary Secretary, in the first instance, as to the probable loss if the increased charge had not been made, and in the second instance as to the proportion of telephone revenue which might be attributed to the increased telephone charges. That is the financial history of that transaction.

Let us look upon the other side of the picture and find out in how far the anticipations of the Minister in respect of the telegraph service were realised. The Minister for Finance, speaking on the Telegraph Bill, Vol. 23, column 1964, said: "The Post Office believe that there will be only a small reduction in the number of telegrams sent, and that it will be possible to offset the loss of revenue in that respect to a large extent by certain economies which may be made possible." I have shown that instead of economies being made there was, in fact, increased expenditure in the following year. I find also that between 1927-28 and 1928-29 the number of ordinary telegrams forwarded showed a decrease of 15 per cent., which, I think, cannot be described as a small reduction. The number of telegrams sent per head in the Twenty-six Counties for the year 1923-24 was 1.15. That had fallen in the year 1928-29, the year for two-thirds of which the increased charge was in operation, to .9 per head, and continued to fall in the following year until it had reached a figure of .7 per head. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the Dáil was induced to agree to the increased charges for telegrams on incorrect estimates submitted to it by the responsible Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. That increased charge has had effects entirely different from what we anticipated, and if to-day we are faced with another heavy deficit on the telegraph branch it is largely due to that mistaken policy.

When the Telegraph Bill was before the Dáil it was stated that the cost of each telegram handed into the Post Office was 2/7; it has, of course, since increased. The traffic has declined, the expenditure has gone up. The cost per telegram, therefore, must have increased substantially since. That is due to the fact that no matter what the extent of the traffic the same machinery must, to a large extent, be maintained. If we have a telegraph service at all we must have facilities for sending telegrams to all parts of the country. The only real economy which could be made in respect of the telegraph service at present is to abolish it altogether, or else to devise some means by which traffic would be so increased that it would pay to maintain the machinery. I do not think that it is possible to find that means increased charges. When the Telegraph Bill was before the Dáil, I was rash enough to make a prophecy that the anticipated saving would not be achieved. I was surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary said it had been achieved, but now that the commercial accounts are available, I find my original anticipation was the right one. The putting on of an increased charge which was bound to decrease the traffic could not be a saving in the circumstances of the case. If the telegraph branch is to be put on a paying basis it must be, in my opinion, by so decreasing the charge that a vast increase in the volume of business will result. I believe that if it was decided not merely to decrease the charge but also to increase the maximum number of words that could be sent for the minimum charge from 12 to about 30, it would be of very great assistance and convenience to the business community, who would not fail to take advantage of it. In other countries they have a system of telegraph letters. It is possible for a fixed charge to send up to 25 or 30 words, and business people avail very largely of that service, because it enables them to send a letter in which it is possible to convey a clear meaning and to get a reply of the same kind on the same day. If the Parliamentary Secretary set out to develop a service of that kind here, I think he would find that more satisfactory results would be obtained than by action in the opposite direction such as has been taken.

We have, as we have been informed, reached the stage when the postal and telephone branches are not losing. The telegraph branch, however, is still losing heavily, and if the energies of the officials of the Department were now concentrated on devising a means by which that branch could also be made more economical and of greater service to the country, I think that the means would be found. I am not clear, however, as to how the deficit on the telephone service has been wiped out. Since 1924, when the charges were considerably reduced, the deficit on that service showed a decided upward tendency, until the year 1928-29, the last year for which the accounts are available, when the deficit was £34,719.

Last year the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that the estimated deficit for 1929-30 was £30,700, and on that occasion, and on all previous occasions, when the telephone service was under discussion here the Parliamentary Secretary emphasised that it was axiomatic in the telephone services throughout the world that extension of the service did not mean a reduction in the unit cost. He told us that the extension of the service may, in fact, necessitate increased charges, the subscribers getting in return for these increased charges a more extended service. He made repeated efforts to impress on Deputies that with the extension of the telephone service an increase in the annual deficit was to be anticipated. Now we are told the deficit has been wiped out. Is that due to a decrease in the extent of the service or to what cause? How is it that the Parliamentary Secretary has, in the last year, discovered a method of achieving what in previous years he told us was impossible of achieving, not merely in this country but in all countries? He instanced a case of the British telephone service which, although producing a surplus, was in consequence of the annual extension producing a smaller surplus each year.

When the Telephone Capital Bill was under discussion here some time ago considerable discussion took place concerning its efficiency. That discussion might more appropriately have taken place on this Estimate, but the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that one of the main points of criticism was the absence of a night service in rural areas. Some two years ago the Parliamentary Secretary announced joyfully that a new type of switchboard had been invented by him, and had been tried out successfully in County Dublin, and that in consequence of the success of the experiment he was now going to instal it in all rural exchanges, with the result that in a very few months night services at rural exchanges would be possible. That was two years ago. Did the switchboard not prove as successful as the Parliamentary Secretary anticipated, or what is the reason the service then promised has not yet been forthcoming?

These are the principal matters arising out of this Estimate to which I wish to refer. I would like, however, if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us of the position of the Post Office Savings Bank. What progress is being made in getting Free State depositors with accounts in the British Post Office Savings Bank to transfer their accounts to the savings bank here? It is stated that the Saorstát deposits in the British Savings Bank are valued at £3,800,000. That is a large sum of money, and if it could be, by any means, transferred to the savings bank here it would be of considerable advantage.

I notice in the accounts relating to the savings bank here, which have been given us in the past, that there has been some increase in the number of depositors, but the increase does not represent the full number which have transferred from the British bank to the Free State bank in the past. Are we to take it that there has, in fact, been a lessening of thrift in so far as the utilisation of the Post Office Savings Bank is an indication of thrift? I notice also that the average deposit has been declining from year to year.

I also notice that the average amount of the credit on each account has been declining year after year. Is that decline due to the prosperity which the President talks about, or is it due to any desire on the part of these small depositors to avail of other thrift services apart from the Post Office Savings Bank? I would like also if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us as to the securities in which the funds of the bank are held.

On the whole, the Dáil has no reason to be greatly dissatisfied with the financial effects of the working of the Post Office during the past few years. The large annual deficit of a few years ago has now been reduced to a comparatively small sum. That is something about which we can be all pleased. But I am convinced that even the small sum remaining can be wiped out if the job is tackled on the right lines. The loss is now concentrated on the telegraphic branch, and it is in regard to that branch I am almost certain that, with proper administration and the adoption of the right policy, the most satisfactory results can be achieved.

Mr. Davin

Once again I desire to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the uncomfortable and insanitary condition of the present offices used as a central sorting office in Pearse Street. This matter has been raised on one or two occasions in the Dáil, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a question of mine, appeared to think that the building was not as bad as it was represented to be. He also indicated that steps were being taken to provide a new sorting office on the site in Pearse Street. I do not know what progress has been made in that direction. I understand that the delay is due partly to delay in certain negotiations which have been carried on with the Dublin Corporation concerning the necessity of widening the street in the vicinity of the present buildings in Pearse Street.

The central sorting office, which is used as the principal distributing centre for the mails for the Saorstát as a whole, should, in the ordinary course, be regarded as a model one. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will admit, if he has ever made any inspection of it, that the present building is far from being a model one. Steps should be taken immediately to remedy the situation that exists as a result of the uncomfortable conditions under which the staff have to carry on the business there. At Christmas I understand there was a complete breakdown in the mails sorting work in that office. People who know more about the conduct of the business carried on in that office than I do maintain that the principal cause of the breakdown was due to lack of proper accommodation. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will admit it or not, but I think it is admitted that it was also partly due to the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary's office to see that a proper staff was provided to deal with the heavy work that had to be carried through at the Christmas period. The staff have been housed in this uncomfortable and insanitary building for the past seven years.

I understand that before the Post Office authorities discovered this building and decided to make it their principal centre for the sorting of the mails in the Free State, several firms had made an inspection of it and refused to regard it as suitable for the carrying on of ordinary business. If that was the opinion of private firms, I think the same argument should apply to the Post Office. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate to the House what steps, if any, have been taken by his Department since he last answered a question in reference to providing better and more respectable business premises for the carrying on of sorting work. I believe also that there are people who maintain that the price paid was out of all proportion to the value of the premises taken over by the Post Office. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give some information to the House on that particular aspect of the matter.

One other point which I desire to bring under the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary is that there is in the service of the Post Office a large number of temporary hands, some of them with very long service, and as a result of that long service they are very much experienced in the work which they are called upon to do from day to day. I understand that as a result of the representations repeatedly made the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Finance have already authorised two examinations. As a result of these examinations about 150 of the temporary hands have been appointed to established positions. There are still considerable numbers of temporary hands with long service and with experience which qualifies them for the carrying on of the work. I believe that these officials should be afforded an opportunity of sitting for another examination and thereby qualifying for appointment to established positions. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to look into the matter and use his influence to see that another opportunity by way of examination will be afforded to these people. I hope that he will do his best to see that people who have service and experience in the postal service will be appointed to established positions.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has received complaints to any great extent concerning the tapping of the telephones. I have reason to know that complaints have been made in certain quarters in and around the City of Dublin regarding the tapping of the telephones. I think that is a very serious matter, and one which I agree should be severely dealt with, whoever the parties are who can be proved to be interfering. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has received any direct complaints on this matter, but it is one affecting the confidence of the public in the administration of the Post Office.

I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied with the present method of making appointments in the case of salaried sub-offices and whether he regards that method as being satisfactory. I know a number of cases in which vacancies have arisen throughout the country, and some of them are in my own constituency. From what I have seen of the policy of the Parliamentary Secretary up to the present, I believe he is much more concerned in making these appointments because the applicant is of a certain political belief rather than because the applicant is fully qualified for the position sought. Vacancies in salaried sub-offices should be given to people who have had service in the Post Office and should not be given because the applicant belongs to a certain political party. I heard of a case some time ago where a girl who had 17 years' service in the Post Office was ruled out in favour of people who had no previous experience, and who, when they were appointed to the position, had to appoint people of experience to do the work.

We hear a good deal from time to time from Ministers about the manner in which appointments to the public services are made. We have been told that appointments to vacant positions are filled on the merits of the particular applicant. The filling of these positions in the Post Office requires to be looked into, and I say that in the interest of the public. The public are entitled to the services of the best applicant. The public have to pay for these services. The applicant for a salaried sub-office who has had service in the Post Office should get a preference before those who have not had such service. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into that matter and deal with it in the light of his own experience and see that some attempt will be made to appoint to these vacancies only those who have had service and experience in the Post Office.

Mr. G. Wolfe

There is one small matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems that in certain places the telephone call office is separated from the Post Office. Except where it would be impossible to have the call office in the Post Office, the call office should be there. It is very inconvenient and sometimes very expensive to have the telephone call office separated from the Post Office. There is a certain case which I have been asked to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary in which the telephone call office is separated from the post office. I have been given to understand that there is no reason in the world in that particular case why the telephone call office and the post office should not be in the one building. It would be much more convenient for the public to have them together. This is a matter in which the people concerned are very much in earnest. They look upon it as a great inconvenience. Under efficient and proper management such a state of things should not arise in the future.

Mr. Little

I want again to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do in reference to the Post Office in Waterford. Time after time representations have been made to him that a gross injustice is being inflicted upon the staff in Waterford. It is admitted that they are graded on a wrong grade and that their grade should be a higher one. I dealt with this matter on the Estimates last year. Other Deputies from Waterford have also dealt with it.

I am perfectly certain that all Waterford Deputies will be at one in making representations to have justice done to the postal service in Waterford. I hope the Deputies representing Waterford will exercise all the influence they possess on the Government to get the matter remedied. Speaking in this House seems to me to be idle and futile even where it aims at remedying a gross injustice to a very worthy service, and to persons who have given and are giving the best service they can to the community. One could imagine the Government would see that any grave dissatisfaction would be dealt with if it were only for the purpose of getting better service from these people. The Parliamentary Secretary must know all about the conditions in Waterford, and the grievances under which the officials there labour. It would be a mere waste of time to repeat everything that has been said on the subject.

There is another matter to which I would like to refer. I speak with reference to the recent appointment of the chief of the technical staff in the telephone branch. A vacancy occurred recently in the telephone staff, and the chief position was filled over the heads of three assistant superintendents. These were men of considerable experience, and they have given every satisfaction in their work. There was no reason why one of them should not have been appointed in the ordinary course of promotion. So far as one can judge from the complaints made in regard to this matter, there is every reason for the assistant superintendents having a grievance that one of them was not appointed.

In country towns the post offices close at 6 o'clock and very often the people want to get stamps before the last post at 9.30 p.m. There is no way in which the people can buy stamps at the moment. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should find some way, either by allowing certain people to sell stamps, or by some other means so that the country people who require them may be able to purchase them.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

In the administration of the Post Office there are many defects. There are many things that could be done that are not done, and there are many things done that could be done much better. I could make certain charges and substantiate them if I were so inclined. I am, however, going to content myself by referring to one thing which, in a public service like the Post Office, is nothing short of a glaring scandal. It is not on a small scale but on a large scale. I refer to the employment of some 3,500 auxiliary and assistant postmen, or what are called assistant deliverers, at a wretched wage. Many of these men are employed in rural districts. At the present moment the farmer is coming in for a fair share of the spotlight. These men who go to the farmer's door with whatever money he may be receiving, or with, perhaps, demands for money, perform a very useful, necessary and important service to the community. It is no harm that they should be on a part-time basis, but I maintain that they are paid a wretched wage.

If it were only a case of a dozen, a score, or even one or two hundred people there might possibly be some excuse for passing it over and saying that there must be some reason, and that the Parliamentary Secretary could stand over and defend it. But when we find there are 2,500 auxiliary postmen and 1,000 officers known as assistant deliverers we come to the conclusion that whatever deficit has been made good in the Post Office, whatever recoupment has been made to the funds of the Post Office, a good deal of it has been made on the sweated labour of these men. That is not the way in which recoupment should be made. The Parliamentary Secretary should seek other channels by which he could recoup the service rather than force these unfortunate men to make a sacrifice. In their case there is a strong temptation not to do service in an honest fashion. They carry important correspondence containing cheques, postal orders, money orders and such things; they are employed from twenty to forty hours per week; the wages they are paid are really wretched, and if the men were so inclined there is every inducement not to deal honestly with the public whom they are serving. It is a great testimony to their character and honesty, and to the way they were brought up that there have been so few defalcations or misappropriations.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that these men are only part-time and that it is not intended they should be paid a miserable wage; but surely the Parliamentary Secretary is sufficiently aware of the conditions in the country districts to know that these men cannot get anything like extra employment. If a man is employed delivering letters for three or four days a week how does he expect any farmer to give him employment when, perhaps, on the three days when the farmer may require his services he would be out delivering letters?

The three days that he will be delivering correspondence will probably be the only three fine days in the week. We never get more than three fine days in the week in this country lately. The farmers would probably not risk giving a man employment on the other three days. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably say that these men are paid at the same rate as agricultural labourers. Is it contended that men who are performing this very important service to the community should only be paid the same wages as agricultural labourers? I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary defend that and make a case for it. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that it is not the way to make up for any deficit there may be in post office administration by getting it out of the sweated labour of these men. He will probably ask "If you were in my position, what would you do in the circumstances?" When vacancies occur there are opportunities for amalgamating these positions and making them full-time positions. That is quite possible, and would give a better service to the community. I have often heard the Parliamentary Secretary seeking for a better postal service for the agricultural community when he was leader of the Farmers' Party. I should like to hear from him whether it would not be possible to amalgamate these positions and give full-time employment and something approximating a living wage. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is scarcely in favour of a living wage, but I would ask him to favour something approximating to a living wage and give consideration to the fact that these men are performing a very important public service to the agricultural community. If the farmers send away butter, as they do in a good many districts, these men bring them their cheques and their money. Unfortunately also they sometimes bring them demands for money. At all events, they perform the important work of carrying their correspondence. The amalgamation of these services when posts become vacant and the absorption of these men into full-time posts are things that the Parliamentary Secretary could very easily bring about. I hope that before this time twelve months the Parliamentary Secretary will have made some change and that we will not then have the standing disgrace of these 3,500 auxiliary postmen, out of whose sweated labour it is sought to make up some of the deficit on the Post Office.

Mr. B. O'Connor

I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the condition of the sorting office in Pearse Street. I visited that office last Christmas when a huge American mail was being dealt with, and the conditions under which the men had to handle that mail were certainly deplorable. They had to shift the bags as many as three or four times from one position to another in order to make room to deal with the mail. There were also disadvantages which I will not touch upon, such as Deputy Davin has referred to in regard to the sanitary conditions and other matters. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to provide proper and suitable accommodation there. It is an absolute necessity to provide proper accommodation for the sorting of the mails, especially at Christmas.

Mr. Anthony

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do to meet the situation created in his Department owing to the redundancy of Post Office assistants. I understand that in Dublin alone there are 40 redundant assistants attached to the sorting and parcels office. I submit that this redundancy has been created by the re-organisation scheme carried out in 1924 under which the work of these redundant officers is being performed by another grade. Representations have, I understand, been made to the Department since 1924 to absorb these redundant officers, but the rate of absorption is rather slow. It is claimed that as the redundancy has arisen owing to the reorganisation scheme arrangements should be made to absorb them even in other Departments. I submit that there is a very definite moral responsibility on the Department to provide for these officers, and that on account of the circumstances surrounding them their cases call for exceptional treatment. Because they are redundant, these officers are compelled to do work which is not appropriate to their class. I also understand that their hours of attendance are rather bad.

Reference has been made to the want of accommodation in the Pearse Street Office on occasions such as Christmas. As far as Cork City is concerned, although we have a most efficient staff, sufficient provision is not made to meet exigencies of the character referred to by Deputies Davin and O'Connor.

I have had occasion to visit Cork Post Office at certain periods of the year, and these not rush periods, such as Christmas time might be understood to be, and there have been occasions when one would have to wait in the Cork Post Office for a considerable time before getting attention. That is not due to any inefficiency on the part of the assistants, but to the fact that the office is understaffed. This is a cause of considerable annoyance and vexation to the commercial community and others using the Post Office. I have often felt that the Post Office assistants were severely tested. Their courtesy and well-known attributes of civility are severely tried by the amount of work they have to do and the inquiries they have to answer, and the terrible inconvenience they are put to by shortage of staff. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should look into these matters which have occasioned a good deal of complaint.

A number of the Post Office officials who have been made redundant because of the re-organisation scheme in 1924 could easily be absorbed into the present service and established. I feel that in these matters I am voicing not alone the opinion of those who are in the service—and I may say I have not been specially instructed to voice their opinions at all—but the voice of the commercial community and the ordinary citizen who have to use the Post Office, and who are much inconvenienced by the want of sufficient staff. I repeat my belief that there is no more efficient staff in the Saorstát than in the Cork Post Office, but the office is understaffed, and that is very apparent at certain periods during the day.

Reference has been made to the case of the auxiliary postmen. That appears to me to be the worst blot on the whole Post Office administration in this country. It is a very poor encouragement to a man to go right: rather, indeed, is it an inducement to a man to go wrong. It is highly immoral for the State that any of its servants, let him be a humble carrier of postal matters or the highest executive officer, should be underpaid. He or she should at least be paid adequately, and the salary or wage should, at least, bear some proportion to the responsibility involved. I hope before the Parliamentary Secretary introduces this Estimate next year these grievances will be removed, and that we will not have to protest again that there are so many redundant Post Office assistants not absorbed in the service, and that this old grievance of auxiliary postmen and other underpaid servants of the State will also have disappeared.

Mr. Corry

I am afraid the Post Office is one of the most glaring instances of a Department in which political influence affects the distribution of position. I am afraid I cannot call it anything else. Apparently when the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed as an indication of appreciation by the Government, he thought that indication of appreciation should spread along through the whole length and breadth of the Farmers' Union in the Twenty-six Counties, because in order to get a position in the Post Office at the present day you must have a recommendation from the Farmers' Union.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

No one would get employment there so, because there is no Farmers' Union.

Mr. Corry

Mention was made here of auxiliary postmen. These men are not alone appointed at a miserable wage but they have never any hope of promotion or any permanency at all. If a permanent position becomes vacant in the Post Office, even though the auxiliary postman is a married man with three or four or five children, that permanent position will be filled by some ex-National Army man even though he is a single man. I think it is the most grossly unfair thing I know of, but it is being carried out to an enormous extent in the Post Office. At the present moment there is a large amount of unemployment in this country, unfortunately, and surely to goodness married men should have the first claim on what employment is going, even at the miserable pay given to a large number of Post Office officials. If there are twenty or thirty extra men required, even around Christmas time, the first preference is given to ex-National Army men, even where married men are idle and their families are starving. I think it is time that proviso should be got rid of. That proviso is more glaring in the case of the Post Office than in any other Department of State.

Then there is the question of telegrams. Not alone have the rural community to pay 1/6 now for a telegram, but they have to pay 6d. extra for porterage, so that a man's telegram is well paid for by the time it arrives. These are matters that I should advise the Parliamentary Secretary to look into. He should remember that even if he was appointed as an indication of appreciation, that indication of appreciation does not apply to every Secretary to a branch of the Farmers' Union. It should not be one of the provisos for employment in the Post Office that the individual looking for it should have a letter of recommendation from the Secretary of a branch of the Farmers' Union or of the Executive rather, because there are no branches of the Union at present. I would advise the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that part of the question at any rate, and to see that the people get fair play. I would further advise him to put an end, in his Department, to the unfair distribution of what little employment is given, even at 6/- a week, to auxiliary postmen.

I do not know what wages the Parliamentary Secretary is accustomed to pay to his workmen, but if what he is paying these men is his headline, then I think there is a Deputy here who would spend more than that on his greyhounds in a week. That is the position of affairs that we are faced with, and it is time that it should stop. The sooner that the state of affairs that prevails with regard to preferential treatment for single men over married men comes to an end, the better it will be all round. I think it ought to cease.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the House ought to take home to itself the seriousness of the position which Deputy Lemass put before it. Three or four years ago those of us who were familiar with the name of the Parliamentary Secretary used to think of him as a farmer. Last year we were thinking of him as a postmaster, but after the exposé of Deputy Lemass to-night we can only think of him as a cook; one who makes hashes of accounts in order to mislead and deceive the House. The whole business of the country is supposed to be conducted on the basis of good faith. When Ministers or those who act for Ministers come to the Dáil and ask it to vote public moneys, we should have put before us the true facts of the matter. I think it is exceedingly regrettable that the Parliamentary Secretary should so far have abused his position as to conceal from the knowledge of the Dáil the real facts in relation to the Post Office.

Of course the Parliamentary Secretary is not altogether to blame in the matter. He is only, I suppose, following in the footsteps of the senior members of the administration. The members of the Executive Council themselves have withheld from the House information which should be put before it, and therefore, for that reason I suppose, we have to deal leniently with the Parliamentary Secretary. Even if we are prepared to overlook the fact that he has misled the House to this extent I do not think that the House can overlook his continued mismanagement of the Post Office. There is no doubt whatever that the present condition of the telegraph and telephone service in the Free State is exceedingly discreditable. The telephone service in the City of Dublin, at any rate, would be a disgrace to the village of the "Sleepy Hollow," let alone to the capital of this State. I know that the delays which have been experienced by those who have had to use the telegraph and telephone services most frequently have been such that business which would naturally pass through the Post Office here has been diverted to London by journalists working in this country for agencies abroad.

They find it cheaper, more expeditious and more satisfactory to post letters in some cases to London rather than use the telephone or telegraph service here. I know of one case where, on account of the unsatisfactory service that was given, the bill for trunk calls alone in one quarter have been reduced from £86 to £5. I have been assured by a responsible person that, in order to ensure prompt and expeditious transmission of a message to London, it has been necessary to duplicate it, to send it by telegraph and also by telephone. In the case of telephone messages it has taken as long as one hour and twenty minutes to get through an urgent trunk call, and in the case of telegrams, a London Press message marked "urgent" has taken over four hours to secure delivery. I am sure there are many Deputies who have had the same experience as I had on occasions when it was necessary to get in touch with one of the manual exchanges from my office. On occasions I have been hanging on, metaphorically, to a telephone for seven or eight minutes, to be told whether the subscriber to whom I asked to be put through was engaged or was otherwise not available, but certainly without having been placed in communication with that subscriber. I spent twenty minutes yesterday morning in endeavouring to get through to a subscriber attached to the Drumcondra Exchange, without success, and without being told why I could not get through. I am sure every business man in the city could quote thousands of experiences of that sort. When we consider that, and when we consider what, I understand, is a common complaint of those who have to use the telephone and the telegraph services as part of their ordinary business, they have been so dissatisfied that they prefer to have telegrams and cablegrams transmitted from London rather than from the Post Office here, we can understand why the telephone and the telegraphic services have been the failure that they have been here under the present Government.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

I do not think it would be possible to parallel the fatuity of the measures which the Parliamentary Secretary—I suppose, with the approval of the Minister for Finance— took in order to wipe out the deficit on the telegraphic service. In the ordinary way that service ought to be capable of maintaining itself. The only way in which it could be maintained at a profit would be to make it cheaper and more attractive to the public.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 23rd.