Deputy Hannigan seems to think that I misconstrued last night what he said. He says that he was only referring to the mechanical defects at the telephone exchange. I would be sorry to misinterpret what the Deputy said. It is significant to observe that when I was proceeding to give a specific case with regard to a call I booked for Donegal the day before, in order to prove what I said, I was asked if I announced I was a Deputy. I did not. I merely gave my telephone number. I was not here yesterday when the Minister made his statement and I did not then know what the position was with regard to the telegraph service. I told the Minister last year that what he called the "concession" he purported to give was almost certain not to lead anywhere. The Minister told the House yesterday, according to the newspaper reports, that the extension of the number of words from nine to 12 for a telegraph charge of a shilling would cost £10,000 per annum. How does he justify that statement? Has it not been proved now that the concession which the Minister gave last year has not led anywhere? Any Department of the State which purports to serve the community must give value, same as a citizen. Neither the Minister nor anybody else should ask the public to believe that to increase the telegraphic allowance from nine words to 12 words would cost £10,000. What about the income? Is there to be no increased income? You are not going to get increased telegraph work until you give value to the public and make the service attractive. Unless you are going to do that you had better close down the telegraph side of the business altogether. You are gradually driving the people off the telegraph. That may be the policy of the Post Office but what about the parts of the country —the poor parts—which have no telephone service? They have no means besides the telegraph of transmitting urgent messages. These people are sufficiently penalised already. In the delivery charge, you are imposing an unjustifiable tax upon them. The poorer people are and the further up the mountains they live, the higher is the delivery charge. If these people live five miles from a post office and get a message—frequently it is a message announcing the death of somebody belonging to them—it costs 1/6, 2/- or 2/6 for delivery. How can the Minister expect these poor people to pay 2/6 for the delivery of a telegram? I ask the Minister to adjust his charges. The people who live near post offices and who get their telegrams delivered free are people who would be able to pay for them. I do not understand the principle on which this charge is founded. The tax is unjust, particularly in relation to the class of people on whom it is imposed. The Post Office should not exist at all unless it gives some benefit to these poor people. You provide them with two deliveries of letters per week. If, in the meantime, one of the members of a family living in a mountain cottage gets ill in England and a telegram has to be sent home, these poor people in the midst of their trouble are asked to pay 2/- or 2/6 for delivery of that telegram, which was paid for on the other side, while the business man or farmer living within a mile of the post office gets his telegram free. I ask the Minister to take this matter in hand and rectify it. I think that every member of this House will support him in having this grievance removed.
In connection with Deputy Hannigan's complaint, there are certain telephone exchanges of long standing in which the original machines are still operating. I made reference to this matter last year and I was told by Deputy Brodrick last night that one of the worst cases to which I drew attention still remains as it was then. To secure efficiency in the service and to extend the telephone mentality, the machines in the exchanges should be highly efficient if only because the rural population know very little about the use of telephones. These new instruments are difficult enough to people who have not used them before, but the position is made much worse when antiquated instruments are in use and people have to twist and twist. The Minister should ask his engineer-in-chief for a list of the places where these old instruments are installed and have them immediately replaced.
The third matter to which I wish to refer is an extended postal service. I was suggesting to the Minister when the House adjourned last night that in areas where the people have occasion for daily communication in order to conduct their business, their necessities should be met. I suggest that the Minister should have a survey made of the entire country and pick out the intensive tillage areas — the areas where wheat, beet, potatoes, oats and flax are grown. The Minister who lives in the city may not appreciate that, owing to the new licensing and quota system, contracts are frequently lost owing to the absence of a daily postal service. That is the case, particularly, when Sunday is preceded or succeeded by a holiday. I myself know cases where farmers have lost contracts in those circumstances. If the Minister is going to adopt a plan of extension, he should have a survey of the country made, and he should cater for the tillage areas. I do not like to complain unnecessarily, unless some practical suggestion can be made to improve matters. As the Minister has adopted a scheme of extensions he should not begin in some areas, but should give all areas the same facilities. I notice an item of £23,567 in the Estimate which has been withheld by Great Britain, while £26,400 is due to Great Britain. I should like to hear if Great Britain is retaining the money because of the economic war. I do not understand how that dispute could extend to the Post Office. I thought it was only the farmers were affected. Apparently the Post Office also comes under the ban. If Britain is retaining £23,567, the Minister can retain the money due to Britain until that country discharges its obligation to his Department. The Minister has there a hammer for use in connection with that money if he wishes to use it. Perhaps the Minister would explain why the money has not been paid to his Department.