Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Apr 1931

Vol. 38 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 62—Department of Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).

Mr. Maguire

I should like to enter a protest on behalf of the rural areas against the manner in which they are treated as regards the delivery of letters and the postal service generally. Deliveries two or three times a week in some of the outlying areas may be good enough as far as the requirements of those districts are concerned, but to be fair to those people there should be similar deliveries applicable to the whole of the country. One would imagine that when we had a farmer's representative in charge of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs the farming community and the rural areas generally, would receive, if not preferential treatment to which in my opinion they are entitled, at least receive ordinary and fair treatment. The very opposite is the fact. We have in what is known as the economic arrangement of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs very severe curtailments in the facilities available. There have been but two or three deliveries per week and there have been drastic cuts in the salaries and allowances of those engaged in the postal service in the rural areas.

There is no justification for imposing as a public service the cost of that service on the whole of the community and giving preferential treatment to the towns and cities as against the rural areas. The Parliamentary Secretary may argue that the towns and cities having a bigger volume of business are entitled to better service. But if you remove the rural areas you will find that you could dispense with the whole of the posts and telegraph service because without the rural areas the towns and the cities could not survive. And it is entirely wrong from the national point of view not to extend the same treatment and social service to those living in the rural areas as is extended to those living in the towns and cities. It is quite contrary to any national outlook that any responsible officer in charge of any Department of the State should take up that attitude. I hold that not alone are the rural areas very badly treated in that respect but that the Parliamentary Secretary or whatever persons are responsible to him have not exercised even ordinary intelligence in allotting the areas for the purposes of facilitating the work.

I made reports and representations to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department over a year ago in reference to a district in which the delivery service takes place from two post offices. One post office is six miles distant and another two and a half or three miles. The postman from the three miles distant post office passes through two townlands in which he delivers no letters, and then passes to townlands further on and delivers letters there. The postman from the six-mile distant post office comes back and delivers his letters in these two or three townlands through which the other postman has already passed. That would require some explanation, and so grave is the inconvenience in this district that people resident in these townlands have made representations to the Department that their letters should be sent to the post office nearest them, and that they would collect deliveries themselves, thus further assisting the Parliamentary Secretary in his economy drive in this matter.

Let me take the question of telegraph delivery, and here again we find the rural areas are victimised and scandalously victimised. I know a district where if a person receives a telegram he has to pay 2/6 on receiving it, although 1/6 has been paid by the sender, so that there is a charge of 4/- for that telegram. How can that be justified? Why should a person have to pay 4/- for what a man in a town or city can obtain for 1/6? It is simply victimisation of the man living in rural districts as against those living in towns and cities. I can understand the Parliamentary Secretary has taken all necessary precautions to reduce expenditure and to bring it down to the very minimum, but if he is to be consistent, and if he is to act as a man who represents himself as a farmers' representative, why he should have gone deliberately out of his way to show preference to the town and city dwellers as against the farmers it is very difficult to understand. I do not care where the man comes from or whether he represents the farmer or the city man, so long as he is fair and just from the national point of view.

The Parliamentary Secretary has reduced the rates of our rural postmen down to the poverty-line. I am not able to say what he has done in this respect in regard to the towns and the cities, but I know that in the rural district that these men cannot possibly afford the cut to the extent to which it was applied. I know men working from seven o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the evening for little over a pound a week. That is not in accordance with what an efficient service would pay such men. I say that the postal service as at present controlled and managed is from the point of view of efficiency a complete failure and deserves censure from those representing the rural districts in this House.

Mr. Good

The Parliamentary Secretary in his statement yesterday afternoon drew attention to the fact that the postal services and telegraph services were practically now on a self-supporting basis. May I remind him that that achievement is as a result of placing a heavy burden on the users of the service in the Free State, and that it is a very heavy burden on trade and commerce in this country. Of course it is quite obvious to Deputies that the great mass of the correspondence passing through this country and passing out of this country into the adjoining country is in connection with trade and commerce. Might I remind him that at present we are burdened in connection with postal services to the extent of 30 per cent. over Northern Ireland and in connection with telegraphic services to the extent of 50 per cent. over the North? These are heavy burdens and they fall particularly heavily on the commercial community who, as I have said, use these services very largely. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary some statement as to whether there is any likelihood of relief being given to that section of our community from these two heavy additional burdens. Deputy Maguire seems to think that the rural areas are sacrificed for the cities, but if he makes inquiry into the problem I think he will find that the reverse is true and that the cities are being burdened to help the rural areas. I think it will be the view of the House and very largely the view of the country, that if the Parliamentary Secretary could achieve economics in the rural areas without curtailing services too much he would be acting in the interests of the State. Unless economies of that kind are effected at the expense of services we cannot hope to get rid of these crushing burdens. So far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, we will be prepared to support the Parliamentary Secretary in his efforts to achieve economics in that direction.

Mr. Maguire

So long as he does not interfere with the cities, of course.

Mr. Good

I do not want to raise the question of the cities as against the country, but merely to reply to the point mentioned by the Deputy, and it is only fair to say that the cities are to a large extent carrying the burden of the rural areas.

Mr. Maguire

The rural areas are carrying a large part of the cities' burden.

Mr. Good

If the Deputy inquires into the matter he will find that I am correct. As to the improvement in the telephone services mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, we on this side of the House have urged on many occasions that that was a line of policy that would have our strong support. We hold that future development will largely be through the telephone services, and that if those services are properly developed it will mean easing the burden in regard to both the telegraphic and postal services. I am not at all satisfied that that efficiency is being achieved in connection with the telephonic service which we were led by the Parliamentary Secretary to believe was taking place. I would be glad to hear from other Deputies whether I personally have been unfortunate in my experience in my constituency in regard to the telephone service. The facts which I have brought before the House on previous occasions do not show that there is that efficiency in that service in my particular area which we were led to believe exists. As Deputies will remember, I have had to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that in a large area in Dublin, Rathmines, applicants for telephone connections have had to wait in many cases for eighteen months before they could get them.

We have been discussing this afternoon the question of medical services for some hours. Take the position of medical men moving into that area. I know the case of at least one doctor who had to wait eighteen months before getting a telephone connection, and I know cases of several businessmen in that area who were in a similar plight. If that is what the Parliamentary Secretary calls efficiency, then I do not know what efficiency is. It was only yesterday that in another portion of my constituency, Drumcondra, I had a case in which a businessman living away from his premises wanted to get a telephone connection in his house to keep in touch with his business. Six months ago he applied for a connection but has not yet got it. He received a letter to say that he will get it in two months, and I got a letter saying that it would be put in within one month. I do not desire to stress the question of efficiency too much, but I would like to see more efficiency in connection with the telephone service.

In connection with the estimate I would point out that on Page 261 there is shown a considerable increase amounting to £5,700 for the current year in connection with the packet service, from £20,400 to £26,100. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some particulars in connection with that heavy service I would be obliged. Another considerable increase is shown in a Department which, on the face of it, does not look like increased efficiency. On Page 262 of the Estimates Deputies will see that the losses by default, accident, etc., have increased from £1,200 in the year 1930-31 to £3,600 in the current year. That is a very alarming increase. I do not want to say anything about its relation to increased efficiency, about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, but one would, at all events, like to have some information as to the reasons for this heavy additional charge in connection with this particular item.

Mr. Cassidy

Speaking yesterday in connection with the postal branch of his Department, the Parliamentary Secretary is reported as having stated that for the first time in the history of the postal service the postal branch was on a paying basis. He is also reported to have stated that the postal branch, according to the estimated commercial accounts for 1930-31, showed an estimated profit of approximately £16,500 compared with a loss of £19,352 last year. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are approximately in the Saorstát 2,500 auxiliary postmen who, as he knows, are mostly part-time employees and, in addition, there are 1,000 employees known as allowance deliverers. At present some of these men are in receipt of scandalous wages. Some only receive 11s., 12s., 13s. or 14s. a week, and I understand that quite recently in Buncrana, Co. Donegal, at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department one of the allowance deliverers had his wages reduced to 10s. per week.

A plea has been made to-day by Deputy Good to the Parliamentary Secretary to achieve further economies in rural areas. I put it to the House that if economies are going to be effected the axe should be wielded at the top instead of at the bottom. Why try to bring employees of the Post Office below the starvation level? Deputies have heard of coolie wages, but, after all, though coolies on board ship may have a low rate of wages, they are, at least, maintained and fed. So far as auxiliary postmen and other part-time employees are concerned, they are not able to earn sufficient wages to keep body and soul together. The Parliamentary Secretary told us with a flourish of trumpets yesterday that last year a profit of £16,000 was made by the postal services. I say that that profit has been made at the expense of the lower paid employees.

I believe it is the duty of the State to provide work for citizens and for the heads of families at a rate of wages sufficient to allow these heads of families and their wives and children to live in a proper state of comfort. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, notwithstanding the demand made by Deputy Good for further economies in rural areas, to consider seriously giving an all-round increase of 5/- per week to auxiliary postmen and to these other carriers. That is not an extravagant demand. Even if he gave an increase of 5/- per week, it would not bring their wages up to a proper level, but they are paid a scandalous rate of wages at present. If economy is to be effected, why not effect it at the top? Why attack the lowest paid servants of the State? I suggest to the Minister that he should consider seriously giving these men an all-round increase of 5/- per week. The rates that are at present being paid are absolutely scandalous. The wretched scale of wages paid at present will not permit these men and their wives and families to live in a proper state of comfort.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the rates of wages paid in these districts are based on the rates paid to agricultural labourers, but I say that the State should be a model employer. If, for instance, in certain industries, where trade boards are established, an employer refuses to pay the recognised rate of wages he is prosecuted, and rightly so, and he has got to pay the proper rate of wages. Here we have the State, which should be a model employer, asking men to work for 10s. a week. It is only right to say that some of these men are only part-time employees but the majority of them are not able to get any other employment and have to subsist with their wives and families on the wages they receive from the Post Office. Notwithstanding the appeals made by Deputy Good on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, and the people in Rathmines, for further economies in rural districts, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider increasing these men's rates of wages as soon as possible.

Mr. Gorry

I would like to join with the representatives of other rural districts in pointing out what I consider to be the unfair treatment of some of these districts. It is a common thing to find in some of these districts that there are only two deliveries in the week. There is no comparison, Deputy Good will realise, between the facilities which exist in the cities and important towns in regard to postal deliveries, telephonic communication, and even telegrams and the treatment meted out to farmers who live 7, 8, 10, or a greater number of miles away from a town and who only receive two deliveries in the week. There are instances in my own constituency in which there are deliveries only on Mondays and Thursdays. As one coming from a rural district, the Parliamentary Secretary himself will, I think, realise the disabilities which exist in these areas. Last year, and on other occasions, I tried to rectify the position in certain instances in which people have over and over again approached me on this issue. I think it is false economy, and it is unfair to the rural taxpayer, to reduce services to their detriment. I am sorry to hear Deputy Good, as representing the City of Dublin, calling for further economies at the expense of rural districts, particularly when Dublin is so very well provided with postal and telephonic facilities.

Mr. Good

I was answering Deputy Maguire, who called attention to the matter.

Mr. Gorry

Deputy Lemass yesterday pointed out a matter which might possibly be considered by the Parliamentary Secretary—namely, the matter of improving the telegraphic facilities by allowing an increased number of words. For instance, a person living in my district lives only 60 miles from here, but if a telegram of 12 words is sent to him, it costs 3/6 before it is delivered, while a telegram of 18 words costs 4/-. On that question, I think the Deputies would unanimously agree that if greater facilities were given without any additional cost it would possibly make the telegraphic section of the Post Office a more paying proposition, because it would facilitate those people particularly who have bad postal services.

I would further appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage to give his earnest consideration to the question of increasing, at least by an additional day, the deliveries in those districts which at present have only a two-day delivery in the week. I think Deputies will agree that these people have not the amenities of life which residents of the cities and towns enjoy, and that they should be allowed better facilities than a delivery on Mondays and Thursdays. If an additional day were added it would be all to the good. I think it is very bad policy to cut down the wages of rural postmen unduly. Perhaps if their wages were increased and they were asked to carry out an additional day's delivery in the week in the districts which I have indicated it would meet the situation. You would then be getting something in return for the extra expenditure. I hope that Deputies will agree that the time is ripe for making these changes.

There is another matter with which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal, namely the system of delivery in the town of Mountmellick. One part of the town gets an early delivery and the other part does not. The Town Commissioners have been recently discussing this matter. I think the whole town should get equal facilities as regards delivery. It has been a bone of contention for quite a number of years. I do not see why one particular end of the town should get better facilities than another. I think all the people of the town should get equal treatment. It is not such a large town and it would be easy to arrange it.

Mr. MacEntee

The Parliamentary Secretary from time to time has told us of the wonderful progress which the Post Office is making, and how the deficit has been reduced. We, on these benches, have complained that we have not been in a position to deal with the statements of the Parliamentary Secretary adequately because of the delay in publishing the ordinary commercial accounts of the Post Office. The seriousness of the disadvantage which we have been placed under by that delay would be instanced by this statement which is appended to these commercial accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in reference to the pension liability which has to be borne by the Post Office. It reads:—

"As will be seen from the General Expenditure and Income Account the provision for pension liability was £118,731, whereas the pensions paid during the year amounted to £178,831. The pension payments during the seven years ended 31st March, 1929 (£1,181,365) exceed the total provision for pension liability during the period (£931,985) by £249,380."

There is a clear indication that so far as the pension liability is concerned the Post Office is not making sufficient provision, and with that fact in mind it is quite easy for us to see how it is that the Parliamentary Secretary is reducing the deficit. He is reducing the deficit by not meeting his liabilities, by leaving them to his successors to shoulder the burden. I think that, as I said last night, it would be much better if the Parliamentary Secretary were candid in this matter, came to the Dáil, and made full disclosure of the position of the Post Office and did not try to fool the Dáil and the public into the belief that economies were being made and efficiency secured, which were reducing the loss of the Post Office when, in fact, as the commercial accounts show, he is doing nothing of the sort.

I said also last night that, as far as telegraphs are concerned, the measures the Parliamentary Secretary has taken to deal with the deficit were not only fatuous, but even positively injurious. The Parliamentary Secretary devised these measures in order to reduce that deficit. Instead of reducing it he has, as Deputy Lemass clearly proved last night, increased it by no less a sum, I think, in eight months, than almost over £6,000. I think that the increase in the cost of telegrams, when it was not accompanied by an effort to make the telegrams more attractive to the business people, was wrongly conceived. Apparently the whole attitude of the Post Office in this matter is founded on the belief that the telegraph is an obsolete service, that it must eventually fall into disuse, and that in course of time it will be superseded by the telephone. I suppose that is one of the disadvantages from which public services which are not under the control of people who have actual experience of business and the requirements of business must always suffer. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware that the telegraph, so far from being an obsolete service, is in many respects, in certain circumstances, superior to the telephone service from the point of view of the business man. There are many transactions, and transactions generally of the highest importance, where it is desirable that there should be a written record, not only of the message as handed in by the sender, but of the message as it is received by the addressee, instructions relating to important construction of works, acceptance of offers to buy and sell, and instructions concerning the delivery of certain goods. In every one of those cases the telegraph has the advantage over the telephone that a written record is made, not only by the sender, but by the addressee. It has also another advantage. The telephone, it has been said is a great saver of the time of many of us who use it constantly, but also it may be a great waste of time. There are many cases where a valuable 15 or 20 minutes has been wasted trying to get into communication with a subscriber over the telephone. I suppose that applies particularly to messages which have to be sent over the trunk line. In the busy main centres much time has to be wasted in trying to get into communication by telephone. A man may wish to send a message by a service which will not require so much of his personal attention and time, and in that case the telegraph does offer to him an advantage that the telephone does not possess. The moment the need for the message arises he has not to wait for an hour and a half until some other matter engages his attention and the matter which first engaged it has gone out of his mind.

In these circumstances the telegraph has very striking advantages which possibly would be widely used if they were made available upon reasonable terms. The disadvantage of the twelve-word message for eighteen pence is that in very few circumstances is it of real practical utility. If, instead of fixing a limit of 12 words to the message, we were to fix a limit of 30 words, in which a detailed message could be sent for eighteen pence, then the telegraph would have very practical advantages over the telephone, and would, as I have said, be generally used by the business community in a number of cases. For instance, I believe that is the experience in America, that the telegraphic letter is for many purposes superseding the telephone altogether. The basis of costing in relation to telegrams is altogether wrong.

An Ceann Comhairle

How is the number of words fixed for 1/6? Is it fixed by statute?

Mr. MacEntee

It is fixed by statute in the present case.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thought so.

Mr. MacEntee

I was afraid that point would arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thought the Deputy would come to that point.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Parliamentary Secretary would for a moment devote some of his time to considering whether he could not——

An Ceann Comhairle

——draft a Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

He would have to draft a Bill in this case—permit us to send 30 words for the eighteen pence. He might possibly deal with the deficit in the telegraph service which arises on this Estimate. That is a matter I was anxious to bring before the House. The Ceann Comhairle has allowed me sufficient latitude to put it before the House, and I do not want to trespass on that any further.

There is only one other question that I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is in relation to statements which appeared in some of the civil service journals as to the conditions which prevailed in the Post Office at Christmas time. There were very definite and categorical statements published in, I think, "An Peann," that owing to the under-staffing at Christmas, and the inefficiency of some of the supervisory officials, a great deal of valuable time was lost. There was a delay of several days in the delivery of mails, and there was altogether such a state of disorganisation in the central sorting offices in Dublin that a great deal of loss must have been occasioned, not only to the State but to the community as a whole. When he is replying I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether he has seen these statements in the Press; whether he has taken any action with regard to them; whether he is going to allow matters next Christmas to be as they were last year; and whether there is again to be disorganisation, loss of time in the delivery of mails as well as loss to the State and to the community.

Mr. Heffernan

Deputy Lemass, yesterday, and Deputy MacEntee, to-day, referred to what they style delay in the publication of the commercial accounts. As Deputies know, the commercial accounts are not the only Post Office accounts. The Post Office accounts are dealt with in the ordinary way in the Government accounts, in the Estimates, the Appropriation Accounts and the Revenue Accounts. It would be quite possible to conceive a situation where we simply relied on these accounts. But it has been the custom of the Post Office to prepare supplementary accounts, called commercial accounts, based on the idea that the Post Office is to be regarded as being in a similar position to a commercial firm. These accounts are prepared by the Post Office following the close of the financial year. For reasons involving certain questions, such as international payments between this and other countries, the accounts cannot be completed by the Post Office until about the month of October. When completed they are sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be audited and are passed on by him to the Department of Finance. As far as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is concerned, its function is finished when the commercial accounts are passed on to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I believe the accounts are published and are made available for the Dáil about 15 months after the close of each financial year. I want to emphasise that the commercial accounts are only supplementary and additional to the ordinary Government accounts.

Deputy Lemass, in particular, and also Deputy MacEntee, entered into an elaborate analysis of the financial position of the Post Office. Very wisely I think, Deputy Lemass then delved into one aspect of the Post Office activities, the telegraphic side, ignoring almost completely the other activities of the Post Office, and forgetting to give credit of any kind for the achievements of the Department as a whole. I think the outstanding points in connection with the Estimates that have been submitted here—and I have no hesitation in emphasising the point—is the fact that an initial loss of £1,100,000 in 1922 has been reduced to £160,000, and that the postal side of our activities, which in 1922 was incurring a very considerable loss, is now at least on a paying basis, returning a surplus of something like £16,500 this year. A loss on the post side of £656,210 has been converted into a profit of £16,500. On the telephone side a loss of £46,014 in 1922 has now been reduced to nil, and in that section of our service is also included a very considerable reduction in our charges which was made in 1925.

I have no hesitation in emphasising the achievements that we have brought about in regard to the general services, and I want to say that I and the other people working in my Department are pardonably proud of the achievement. On the telegraphic side Deputy Lemass, regarding that evidently as the weak link in the chain, entered into an elaborate analysis of the position. The Deputy dealt in an intricate fashion with a whole series of figures, going back to the increase of the telegraphic rate in 1928, and referred to the various commercial accounts and to statements made by me on the Estimates. It is quite evident that Deputy Lemass could not expect me to reply to statements of that kind. I might have been called upon to reply yesterday. It would be quite impossible for me to reply to statements of that kind across the House or to deal with a whole series of tabulated figures. It appears to me Deputy Lemass must have had the idea when he was making the statement that he was making suitable material for another speech down the country on one of his Sunday excursions, on a matter which I had not an opportunity of dealing with.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he did not discover for himself in the commercial accounts that the figures he gave to the House were the wrong figures.

Mr. Heffernan

I intend to deal with the figures. I have not discovered it, because the figures were not wrong.

Mr. Lemass

They were wrong.

Mr. Heffernan

I will deal with them. I had the pleasure of dealing in the Seanad to-day with other postal department matters, and a Senator who had the occasion to deal with some intricate matters in connection with the telephone service supplied me beforehand with information as to what he wanted to discuss. Deputy Lemass did not supply me with information of that kind. He might have had the courtesy to do so, as he knows that it is ordinarily what would be done by a leader or a vice-leader of a Party. I have not got the figures, but I have a general idea of the statements that were made by the Deputy. I had no means of getting his figures beyond a short summary in the newspapers. However, I think I have got enough to know the basis on which the Deputy made his charges.

The Deputy says that I supplied him with wrong and with false figures. I think Deputy MacEntee emphasised that by saying that I deliberately supplied the Dáil with cooked figures.

Mr. MacEntee

The Parliamentary Secretary made a hash of them.

Mr. Heffernan

It was Deputy MacEntee made a hash of them. The House will find that anything supplied to the Dáil purporting to be actual figures are figures over which we can stand. When Estimates are dealt with here in the Dáil we are anxious to supply the Deputies with all possible information as regards the Post Office and its workings, and so give estimated figures where actual figures are not yet available. That being so I will deal with the particular figures. I stated in every case in which figures were supplied that they were estimated figures when that was so. That being so we did not guarantee that these estimated figures might not show some change later, but such changes are usually trivial.

Mr. Lemass

I did not refer to estimated figures at all.

Mr. Heffernan

I hope the Deputy will give me a chance of making my statement to the House. In so far as these figures are concerned I maintain that any figures purporting to be actual figures given to the Dáil by me are accurate. The Deputy has gone back and he deals in particular with the figures given by me in my statement made in the Dáil on the Estimates during a debate on the 15th May, 1929, Volume 29, column 2010. I want to state as regards those figures that Deputy Lemass's charges as to supplying inaccurate or incorrect figures seems to arise entirely out of the statement I made on the 15th May, 1929. I want to tell the House that most of the figures given in that statement were estimated figures, and that they are approximately correct, with one exception, which I will explain later. In the statement made then I got as close to the actual facts as I could. I will not at any time commit myself in any estimate of figures to more than that. The position is this, that, dealing with the telegraph side, the Deputy discovered that in the figures for 1927-28 the revenue figure was given in my statement as £223,733. That figure will be found in column 2011 on the 15th May, 1929, in my statement.

Mr. Lemass

That is the only figure that was right.

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy said that that figure did not coincide with the figures as given in the commercial accounts.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that.

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy indicated that the figure did not coincide with the figure in the commercial accounts for 1927/28, because that figure was £235,804. He said that, similarly, the figures given for the loss on the telegraph service for the year 1927/28, £154,283, did not correspond with the figures shown in the actual commercial accounts. That was £142,212. I will account for that, and when I have accounted for it I will case the Deputy's mind as to the supposed inaccuracies about which he is speaking. If the Deputy will look up the commercial accounts for 1929, page 16, telegraphs, he will find there, lower down on the page, that there is an item of £12,071 credited to accounts for wireless broadcasting licences. That item up to the end of 1927/28 was included in the revenue from telegraphs.

Mr. Lemass

It is not included in that figure.

Mr. Heffernan

It is. It is included in the item of telegraphs. Therefore the loss on the Telegraph Branch in 1927/28 is greater by that amount. In order to show the comparable figures in the statement dealing with that year, 1927/28, and the year 1928/29, we proceed to subtract from the revenue the amount which has been credited for wireless licences.

Mr. Lemass

So did I.

Mr. Heffernan

Evidently the Deputy did not. If the amount under the head of wireless licences is allowed for, the Deputy will find that most of the basis on which he claimed that our figures are incorrect, goes.

Mr. Lemass

No. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us the figure of £223,733, and I say that figure is correct. Take the same items for the following year and it is £220,219, whereas the figure the Parliamentary Secretary gave us was £223,610.

Mr. Heffernan

The statement was made in May, 1929. The figures were given for 1928/29, and they were stated to be estimated figures for the reason that they could not be at that stage anything else.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite prepared to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, but I want to point out to him that on these figures the increase on the telegraphic charge was not justified.

Mr. Heffernan

We will deal first with the accuracy of the figures. I take it that the accuracy of the figures is now accepted.

Mr. Lemass

I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement as to their inaccuracies.

Mr. Heffernan

The accuracy of the figures is accepted, I take it. I am not dealing with the deduction which the Deputy draws. I am dealing with the accuracy of the figures as supplied to the Dáil. It is important that we should deal with them and understand that so far as we purported to give correct figures we have given them, and so far as we purported to give estimated figures we are close to the mark. There was only one altered estimation of any importance. That was the estimate of expenditure for 1927-28. We under-estimated the amount of expenditure. That was a genuine under-estimation.

Mr. Lemass

For 1927-28 there was an over-estimation, and in the following year an under-estimation.

Mr. Heffernan

There was a considerable over-estimation of the reduction likely to accrue in 1927-28. That was a genuine mistake. That arose in this way—we naturally expected a considerable reduction in the staff due to dealing with a smaller number of telegrams. We expected that the staff would be largely reduced by the operations of the Committee set up to deal with the application for retirement under Article 10 of the Treaty. But that Committee did not sit until the following year, and we were left with officials whom we had to provide for, as their retirement did not take place owing to their cases not having been taken up by the Committee that year. So much for the accuracy of the figures. I think it will be accepted that the figures are accurate.

Mr. Lemass

I will take the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of their inaccuracy.

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy possibly could not understand the figures, or probably he did not want to understand them. I come now to deal with the question of telegraph charges. Deputy Lemass made many statements and I made statements, and somebody has to judge. We are satisfied that the effect of the increased charge on telegrams was to reduce the loss suffered by the Post Office, and that the Post Office is now in a better financial position than it would otherwise be, because of the increase in the charges on telegrams. I definitely maintain that that is so. I will not go into an elaborate argument to explain that, but I will outline our views.

The loss on the telegraph side of the Post Office in 1927-28 was £154,283. That loss has been reduced to £127,400.

Mr. Lemass

That is not the figure in the accounts for 1927-28.

Mr. Heffernan

Again, allowing for the £12,000 credited to the account for wireless telegraph revenue, which ought to be added to the loss given in the commercial accounts. So there is a very definite improvement so far as the loss is concerned. So far as this Department is concerned, when we decided to increase the telegraph charges we had come to the conclusion that the telegraph expenditure side had reached a static position. Our expenditure could not come down to any appreciable extent while our revenue was definitely coming down and at an accelerated rate. The result would be that we would have increased losses. Instead of that we now have reduced losses. The revenue for 1927-28 was £223,733. That has fallen to £203,400. If the rate of fall which existed previous to the increase in charges had gone on the loss in revenue this year would have been very much larger.

Mr. Lemass

The fall in revenue between 1926-27 and 1927-28 was only £3,000. Then the increased charge went on and the revenue decreased by £10,000.

Mr. Heffernan

You have to go back further than that. At the actual rate of decline of traffic at the time the increased charge was put on, if continued up to the end of the last financial year the loss in revenue would be approximately £25,000, while the actual loss, after the increased charge, is approximately £20,000. So that there has been a definite advantage there. I believe I have justified the statement that the increase in the charge has definitely improved the financial position of the Post Office.

Mr. Lemass

On the contrary, it accelerated the decline in revenue, as the figures show.

Mr. Heffernan

That is taking it that the decline in revenue was going to go on at the rate at which it was going on, but we were definitely of the opinion that the decline in revenue would be accelerated without the charge.

Mr. Lemass

So it was.

Mr. Heffernan

And the loss would be greater because of the fact that the expenditure could not be reduced. Deputy Lemass thinks that if we go back to the reduced charge of 1/- again it will improve the position without decreasing the actual loss on the telegraph side. The financial effect of reducing the charge to a shilling at the present rate of telegraphic traffic would amount to £203,400.

Mr. Lemass

In other words, there would be no revenue at all.

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy might say that there would be an increase in the number of telegrams sent.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain how a decrease in the charge would cause a loss in revenue greater than the total revenue?

Mr. Heffernan

In going back to a shilling the loss would be £35,000. That is taking it that the amount of traffic would not increase appreciably. We are satisfied that the amount of traffic would not increase appreciably. We have reasons for being so satisfied. One of the reasons is, and I think it is a fairly convincing reason, at the time the shilling charge was increased there was a continual decline in the amount of traffic. There was an acceleration of the decline in the first three months of 1927-28. The decline in traffic in the first three months of 1927-28 was such that in twelve months, at the same rate, it would amount to £17,700. Is there any indication that if we go back to the shilling rate we would increase the telegraphic traffic? I do not think there is. We realise that the telegraph side of our activities has got to be carried on, but we realise also that the public have turned definitely from the telegraph side to the telephones, and that the telegraph side is mainly being used as an emergency service. The fact of the matter is that the decline still continues. I am convinced that the decline is not mainly due to the effect of the higher charge. I believe that the full effect of the higher charge was spent within a year or two years of the increase, but the decline still continues, the reason being that people are getting telephone-minded. They are getting used to long-distance telephoning. The decline is easing off. I think it will reach a state soon where it will remain more or less static. While the telegraph side is an emergency service, we have got to carry it on as a burden on the other services of the Post Office. I see no way out of it. I believe that the effect of decreasing the charge would lead to increase in our losses.

Mr. MacEntee

Increase the number of words and make the message more useful.

Mr. Heffernan

The only effect of that would be that we would lose revenue. I do not see any reason to think that we would get increased traffic. If the traffic was confined to the 1/6 rate for increased words we would lose revenue. I do not think there would be any increased traffic, because there are not many people who would want to send telegrams costing more than 1/6 who would be inclined to use the telegraph service. It would definitely increase our losses. I am not looking at the effect on the facilities provided to the outside public at all. Viewing it merely as a commercial proposition or business matter, I am quite satisfied that advantage has been gained and that our accounts are better because of the increased charge.

To turn from that to certain criticism by other Deputies, the criticisms which Deputy Good and Deputy Maguire made, to a certain extent, cancel each other. Deputy Good wants increased facilities for the city, while Deputy Maguire wants increased facilities for the country. I will leave them to argue it out between themselves. As to the complaint made by Deputy Good about delays in providing telephone facilities, I think the Deputy has been pressing that point a little bit too far. It has been explained very fully to him on various occasions that we have done everything in our power to meet any applications that have come in, and to give consideration to any special recommendation by Deputy Good. Where people give urgent reasons for getting telephones we are prepared at the moment to meet any requirements. You cannot at all times meet every requirement in every exchange. I do not know that we will ever reach the position where we will be able at all times to meet the full requirements. There will be exchanges where we can easily meet the requirements, but there will be exchanges where there will be congestion, and it will take some little time to make the extensions.

In regard to Rathmines, there was congestion there for various reasons which have been explained already mainly owing to the inheritance of an obsolete system. We are about to build a post office and exchange there. We had to put down new cables, as you cannot carry lines to people's houses without cables. In order to meet the emergency which Deputy Good has been pressing so much about, that people were in urgent need of telephones, we have set up a temporary exchange at Terenure and are prepared to meet all the requirements of the Terenure and Rathmines districts, and I do not believe that there will be a demand for a telephone in these areas that cannot be supplied in the next two or three months. When we have the post office and telephone exchange built at Rathmines we shall be able to meet the requirements of that district for the next fifteen years. A similar situation obtains in Drumcondra, and it is only in regard to these two areas that any complaint exists. We are meeting that situation. There is no question of inefficiency. The inefficiency on the part of the telephone service has altogether been with the people who passed it on to us—who passed on an inefficient and obsolete system.

Mr. Good

May I say that when I raised the question of Rathmines three years ago I was told that a new station was then in course of preparation. That new station is not in existence today. Is that inefficiency or otherwise? I want to be quite fair to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy has some personal knowledge of the difficulty of getting sites for building and of getting buildings erected.

Mr. Good

I know the difficulties in connection with building as well as anybody else, but it should not take three years to get over them.

Mr. Heffernan

There are difficulties about building, and there were difficulties. The difficulties are being overcome. In any case, the Deputy knows that we have provided a temporary exchange. We are meeting the requirements and are prepared to meet the requirements. We are sorry if people have had to wait six months, or any other time.

Mr. Good

The Deputy has alleged that my criticism was unfair. I shall leave it to the House.

Mr. Heffernan

I shall have to leave it to the House also. The Deputy wanted some information as to the actual items in the Estimate and referred in particular to item E 5—the Packet Service—as to which there is an increase of about £5,000. That is on account of anticipating an adjustment of the amount to be paid by the Saorstát towards the Dun Laoghaire and Holyhead mail packet service. We have been paying a certain amount and certain negotiations were going on. It was anticipated that the amount would be increased. It has been increased, but not quite to the amount that this item would suggest. There has been, however, a final settlement.

Mr. Good

I suppose this covers the charge over a number of years?

Mr. Heffernan

The future charge has been fixed. The figure given in the Estimates is not the future charge. The future charge is a lesser amount than the actual figure given here. As to losses in default, provision has been made in regard to one special case in Mayo where a considerable loss has been incurred. We do not accept responsibility for these losses, but in anticipation of possibly having to accept responsibility we have to make provision.

Mr. Good

As a result of this, has the inspection department been tightened up?

Mr. Heffernan

I would not like to enter into a discussion of the inspection system, because that was dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee and there is a certain point of view held by our Department which does not agree with the point of view expressed by the Public Accounts Committee as to the inspectorial system. I think we shall have to thresh it out in some other place and in some other way. We believe that the expense which would be attached to establishing an inspection system which would guarantee immunity against any loss would be altogether excessive and would take away any advantages which we have in profits in the services which we render. We believe that the cost of the additional kind of safeguard, if it is possible to have a safeguard against certain offences, would be altogether excessive.

Mr. Good

So nothing is being done to prevent a recurrence of this?

Mr. Heffernan

I do not want to enter into an elaborate discussion of this, because it cannot be fully discussed here, but the actual average amount lost is not very large. There may be occasionally a big loss, and this is unfortunately one. A particularly clever person will succeed in evading all safeguards occasionally. I had better not say anything more, as this case is sub judice. Various Deputies have raised the question of the position of rural, auxiliary, and part-time postmen. I should like to say, whether Deputies are aware of it or not, that they are making statements with regard to the rates of wages, which are definitely untrue. There has been no reduction in the rates at all—none whatever.

Mr. Cassidy

Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that as a result of certain reorganisations or changes which have been made recently some auxiliary postmen and some allowance deliverers are receiving less wages than a year ago?

Mr. Heffernan

If the Deputy will allow me to make my case, I will explain. There has been no reduction whatever in rates of pay. There has, of course, been a reduction in the bonus, just as there has been a reduction in the bonus of every public servant. As far as the basic rates are concerned, there has been no reduction, so that the statement that there has been a reduction in the rates of pay is not true. There have been reorganisations and alterations of routes and changes in certain districts, but these alterations and re-adjustments are constantly going on all over the country, and must go on.

Mr. Cassidy

As a result of which some auxiliary postmen are at present receiving a less rate of wages.

Mr. Heffernan

It might possible happen that a man who was an auxiliary might become an allowance part-time postman. If that happened in a readjustment it might mean a very slight reduction—perhaps a 1/2d. an hour. That would be a trivial thing and would only happen in very exceptional circumstances. We must keep ourselves free to reorganise and readjust our postal routes all over the country generally with the idea of giving better facilities to the public.

Mr. Cassidy

In view of the very low rate of wages which these men are receiving, will the Parliamentary Secretary give consideration to the suggestion I have put forward, that there should be an all-round increase of 5/- per week?

Mr. Heffernan

I cannot accept the statement that there has been a lower rate of wages. The rates are the rates fixed long ago and which are still in existence. There has not been any reduction.

Mr. Cassidy

Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that 15/- or 16/- is a fair wage?

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy may make all the capital he likes out of it.

Mr. Cassidy

I am making no capital out of it. I am stating a plain fact.

Mr. Heffernan

The rates of wages are exactly as they were. There has been no reduction. The basic rates are the same. The bonus, of course, has decreased. The 16/- or 20/- or 25/-, or whatever wage the auxiliary postman happens to get, is not a week's pay, and the Deputy knows it well. That is only the pay for a certain number of hours' service, and when that number of hours' service has been given, the postman is free to take up any work which he likes, and many of them do. One of the conditions of appointment is that a postman, if he has not already part-time work, will endeavour to secure part-time work, in addition to the work which he may get from the Post Office. I would ask Deputies from rural areas who are advocating this to realise what the effect of the change would be if these part-time men were converted into fulltime men. I think Deputy Davin advocated that the auxiliary postmen at present working part-time should be converted into established postmen, or something corresponding to that, doing a full day's work for a full day's pay. I do not know whether the Deputy actually suggested that, but I think it was suggested. I want to tell Deputies what the effect of it would be. First of all, it would mean definitely an inferior service in the country. At present, our policy is, as far as possible, to give early morning deliveries regularly, and, in so far as it is necessary to do so, to have late collections.

Everybody who receives letters by post wants to get early deliveries, and if you convert your existing part-time postmen into whole-time men, incidentally dispensing with about half of them, it means that people, instead of getting letters at 8, 9, or 10 o'clock in the morning, may get them at 2 o'clock in the day. I do not think the public would be pleased with that. I do not think that the people represented by the Deputies who complain would like it. It would also have the effect of dispensing with the services of a good proportion of our existing auxiliary postmen. If you convert two four-hours-a-day duty men into one eight-hours-a-day man, it means that one man is dispensed with, and it would mean creating a good deal of unemployment in the country.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary is pretending to answer a question that I did not raise. I dealt with the question of temporary post office assistants.

Mr. Heffernan

If Deputy Davin did not raise it, the question was raised by somebody else. Deputy Davin certainly raised the question of the accommodation in the Pearse Street Sorting Office, and complained that there was inadequate accommodation in the Pearse Street office. That is not so. We acknowledge that the accommodation there is pretty tight, that there is not much to spare, but at the same time there is sufficient accommodation to carry out the work. The accommodation is temporary. We intend to improve the accommodation as early as it is possible, and we intend to have a central office for all sorting. But that is going to take some time; it cannot be done at once. But the present accommodation in Pearse Street is not inadequate.

Mr. Davin

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not admit that the break down in the sorting arrangements at Christmas was due to the lack of proper accommodation at Pearse Street?

Mr. Heffernan

I do not agree with that at all. The congestion that existed to a minor extent at Pearse Street at Christmas was not due to inadequate accommodation.

Mr. Davin

Did the Parliamentary Secretary hear Deputy Bat. O'Connor state that he had visited the premises and that the accommodation was inadequate?

Mr. Heffernan

There was no break down at the Pearse Street office; there was a slight delay. Only a very slight portion of the mail matter passing through Pearse Street office was delayed. I had the matter very carefully inquired into, and I know what happened. There was no break down; there was certain congestion and a very small proportion of the mail matter was not delivered on Christmas Day but was delivered on the 27th.

Mr. Davin

It was delivered a week after Christmas.

Mr. Heffernan

The greater part of that break down was not due to the Post Office at all, but was due to the public so far as one could blame them. Instructions are always issued to the public that we would not guarantee the delivery of mail matter at Christmas not posted before the 22nd of December. We will always do our best to deliver it, but we will not guarantee delivery. It so happened this year that from the position which Christmas Day occupied in the week an undue proportion of matter was posted on the 22nd and 23rd. Now, it is almost impossible to make arrangements with regard to a temporary staff and office accommodation for dealing with an unprecedented flood of mail matter all concentrated on one or two days. We asked the public to co-operate with us, and to a certain extent they did, but not altogether.

Mr. Davin

If the Parliamentary Secretary's statement is true that the public are largely to blame, will he state why his Department adopted third degree tactics and court-martialled all the higher officials in the sorting office?

Mr. Heffernan

There were no third degree tactics adopted, and there was no courtmartial. We had to get the facts, and had to inquire pretty closely in order to get the facts, as we always try to get the facts in regard to any complaints that we believe to have any foundation.

Deputy Davin raised the question with regard to temporary post office assistants. We have had already two examinations confined to that particular class and we have taken in a good number of those who passed in that class. The question of having another examination has not, I believe, been given any special consideration, but we have taken probably the best qualified of the temporary post office assistants and we do not know that it would be good policy to hold any further examination. If the Deputy likes we shall examine that aspect again. I cannot promise that anything will result, but I am prepared to go into it.

The Deputy raised the question of "tapping" of telephones. I do not think there is any such thing taking place as tapping of telephones. People believe there is when they hear peculiar noises when they are using the telephone, but that does not necessarily mean tapping. The question of sub-post office appointments was raised by Deputies Davin and Corry. I think there is very little foundation for any grievance with regard to those appointments, and I think the Deputies that raised it were not very serious in their charges. I think Deputies know that in making these appointments the policy is to get persons that will run the offices in the most satisfactory way and give the best service. There are various qualifications to be taken into account such as personality, integrity, intelligence, financial standing and the possession of suitable premises. The policy of the Department has always been to select the person most likely to give satisfactory service.

Mr. Davin

I do not want to make charges against the Parliamentary Secretary as far as he is personally concerned, but I would like him to look into the filling of the appointments from the point of view of giving the preference to persons who have personal experience of the service.

Mr. Heffernan

As a matter of fact we do give a preference to those persons who have had service. The most important and lucrative appointments are generally filled by Service candidates—I say generally, not always. Service candidates cannot always get suitable premises or their financial standing may be very low, but our general tendency in regard to the more important appointments is to appoint Service candidates, provided we can get good ones. Recently, I think two or three times we appointed Service candidates.

I do not know if I am supposed to deal seriously with certain remarks made by Deputy Corry when he said that a candidate must have a recommendation from a Secretary to the Farmers' Union. In Deputy Corry's county, we realise that the Secretaries of the Farmers' Union are men of intelligence and are men selected for those positions because they were men of integrity. In connection with the recommendation of men not engaged in the Post Office service in the past, the recommendation from such persons as those would be very carefully considered. I could not say that a similar recommendation from Deputy Corry would be considered.

Mr. Lemass

Would the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary change if Deputy Corry joined the Farmers' Union?

Mr. Heffernan

I think not. He is not likely to be a possible Secretary anyhow.

Mr. Davin

Would the Parliamentary Secretary take the opinion of a local secretary of the Farmers' Union against that of a local postmaster?

Mr. Heffernan

That is a hypothetical question which has never arisen.

Mr. Davin

It has.

Mr. Heffernan

We are prepared to take local representations from people of importance and influence in the district. We get local representations from all parties. In fact, we have got them from Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party and, what is more, we have acted on them. The question of the status of the staff of the Waterford Post Office was raised by Deputy Little. That question received consideration for a long period, and was decided, but it was reopened on pressure being brought by Deputies from all sides of the House. It has recently been again examined very fully, and we are quite satisfied departmentally that there is no justification for raising the status of the staff. We are satisfied on examination of the main aspects of the question—the amount of work transacted in that office and the cost of living in Waterford compared with other towns which was the basis on which the original status was fixed—that there is no justification for changing that status. The Department of Finance concur with us in that decision, and Deputy Little may take it that the decision in that regard is now final.

Mr. Little

Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the question is not going to be reopened?

Mr. Heffernan

It has been reopened and decided.

Mr. Little

And the Waterford Post Office is being graded lower than it should be according to population?

Mr. Heffernan

No, the grading is not to be changed.

Mr. Little

There is to be no change?

Mr. Heffernan

No. A question was also raised as to the provision of stamps in post offices after closing hours. In so far as Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, and other centres are concerned, we have provided slot machines outside the post offices. Possibly Deputies have seen them. It may be thought that they should be placed outside post offices in smaller centres, but in reply to that I would say that it is quite a common practice for small shopkeepers to get licences to sell stamps. It is not difficult to get such licences. Many shopkeepers are anxious to get them, and they get them when there is need for them.

Mr. Little

I hope that the Press will take a note of that so that the people in the country will know about it.

Mr. Heffernan

That is the case.

Mr. J.X. Murphy

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state what the cost of these machines is?

Mr. Heffernan

I could not say at the moment, but I will find out for the Deputy. Deputy Anthony raised the question of redundant officers. I think he was dealing with a certain class of officers who became redundant in their own class after the reorganisation which followed when the present Government took over affairs. There are no steps which we could take which would greatly improve the position of these officers, apart from the existing opportunities which they have. They are being gradually absorbed into the ordinary staff. So far as their rates of pay are concerned, these officers are taken over and continued on the rates of pay which they enjoyed before reorganisation. We cannot, of course, put two officers to do what one is capable of doing. These men will be gradually absorbed. I want to see them absorbed as quickly as possible, because I think it would be a good thing for them.

Mr. Little

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give an answer in regard to the question of promotion in the telephone department to which I referred?

Mr. Heffernan

The Deputy will understand in regard to an isolated instance of that kind that I have no information, but if he raises the matter either by question in the Dáil or by letter to me I will answer him.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give any information concerning the transfer of deposits in the British Post Office to the Post Office Savings Bank here?

Mr. Heffernan

The difficulty about the transfer is that in so far as the withdrawal of money from the British Post Office is concerned, our Department acts as agent and will withdraw deposits, but we do not act as agent for the lodging of deposits so that clients have, therefore, to send their deposits by some other means. The general tendency is to withdraw deposits from the British Post Office and either lodge them in our savings bank or make some other use of them. We have issued leaflets calling the attention of the public to the benefits which we give, and many people have taken advantage of them. There is, as I say, a gradual withdrawal from the British Post Office, and in due course those deposits will almost disappear. There is a good deal of diversion of savings from the savings bank to savings certificates, so that withdrawal of deposits from the British Post Office does not mean lodgments in our Post Office.

Mr. Lemass

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some figures as to withdrawals? It appears to us that there is still a sum of about four million pounds on deposit in the British Post Office.

Mr. Heffernan

I am informed that the rate of withdrawal is about £50,000 a month, or £600,000 a year. I take the Deputy's figure of the total Irish deposits in the British Post Office as being correct. Deputy Little wanted to know how the money held in the Savings Bank is invested. The Department of Finance has issued a leaflet giving the investments in detail. I think it is placed on the Table. It is a considerable list and I need not read it, but I will submit it to the Deputy if he desires to see it.

Mr. Kilroy

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether depositors in the Newport Post Office will be secured against loss under the present circumstances?

Mr. Heffernan

I dealt with that point, but perhaps the Deputy was not here. I said that provision had been made in regard to the unusual heavy losses sustained in a certain post office in the West, but that we had not so far accepted responsibility for that loss. The case is still sub judice, and we cannot at this stage offer any opinion upon it. We do not want to be taken as accepting responsibility, but we have made provision to deal with the situation in case we are required to accept responsibility.

Motion put and agreed to.