Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 9

Vote 61—Posts and Telegraphs.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £148,000, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (45 and 46 Vict., c. 74; 8 Edw. 7, c. 48; 1 and 2 Geo. 5, c. 26; the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1928, etc.), and of certain other Services administered by that Office.

In the unavoidable absence of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I am taking this Vote, and I have the following statement to make. The net total of the Estimate for the financial year ending on the 31st instant, which has already been approved by the Dáil, amounts to £2,513,580. By reason of circumstances which could not have been anticipated, this sum will not be sufficient to cover essential expenditure up to the end of the year, and an additional £148,000 will be required. The actual excess over the authorised Estimate amounts to £166,020, but there are offsets of £17,355 from increased Appropriations-in-Aid, and of £665 from savings on various sub-heads, leaving a net excess of £148,000.

Of the total excess, £62,320 is due to the increased bonus awards operative from 1st June, 1942, and 1st January, 1943, respectively.

The causes of the increases under each of the sub-heads affected are as follows:—In sub-heads A (1), (2), and (3), that is, Salaries, Wages, etc., the total increase amounts to £96,170, of which £59,370 is due to increased bonus; £34,645 is required for extra staff to cope with additional telegraph money order and telephone traffic, which has considerably increased by reason of emergency conditions for food voucher business, rationing schemes, etc.; and £2,155 for increased cost of substitution of officers on loan to other Departments and of improved scales of pay to wireless operator personnel.

Under sub-head E (1), that is, Conveyance of Mails by Rail, the increase is £4,740. The increase is due to extra payments to railway companies in respect of additional parcels conveyed by rail. The parcel post is now being used to a much greater extent than normally for the conveyance of goods, rationed and in short supply, which would ordinarily be sent in larger quantities by other modes of transport.

Under sub-head E (5)—Conveyance of Mails by Air—the increase is £6,700. Owing to the slowness and uncertainty of surface transport in emergency conditions, a considerable increase in the quantity of air mail correspondence for places abroad has taken place, necessitating increased payments to other administrations.

Under sub-head G (1) and (2)—Non-Engineering Stores and Uniform Clothing—there is an increase of £18,210. The actual increase under these sub-heads is £31,800, the result of emergency purchases of uniform clothing and miscellaneous non-engineering stores and of increased allowances to postmen for the use of their private cycles on official duties. There is an offset of £13,590, due to expenditure on the purchase of mail bags, cycles, motor transport, etc., being less than anticipated owing to existing difficulties of supply.

Under sub-head I (1)—Engineering Branch, Salaries, etc.—there is an increase of £20,600. Of this increase £2,500 is in respect of higher bonus payments. The balance, £18,100, represents the cost of staff employed on maintenance work instead of on new construction owing to difficulty in obtaining supplies of engineering materials and the necessity for conserving present stocks. Expenditure on new construction is normally met out of telephone capital.

Under sub-head K—Engineering Materials—there is an increase of £6,000. Of the increase, £4,000 is due to augmented issues for maintenance and renewal purposes and £2,000 to expenditure for replacement, in the current financial year, of portion of the engineering stores, etc., destroyed in the fire in the post office factory in November, 1942.

Under sub-head N (1, 2 and 3)— Superannuation Allowances, etc.—there is an increase of £12,400, due to increased bonus and to superannuation allowances being greater than anticipated. There have been several unexpected retirements during the year before the normal age.

Under sub-head O (1)—Post Office Savings Bank, Salaries, etc.—there is an increase of £1,200, due to increased bonus and to extra provision for increased savings bank business. There are offsetting savings amounting to £665, mainly in respect of reduced travelling expenses due to restriction of transport facilities. The increase of £17,355 under sub-head T is due chiefly to increased receipts from other administrations in respect of agency services; from savings bank funds in respect of provision for increased work and higher bonus payments; from railway companies and others in respect of works required by them; from other Government Departments in respect of stores handled for them and various smaller items.

There are one or two matters I would like to raise in connection with this Vote. The Minister, replying to a question in regard to the remuneration, scale payments, of sub-postmasters, indicated that the Government had under consideration the question of extending the recent bonus increase to this class. I would like to ascertain from the Minister what is the real delay in applying the increase. It is well over two months since the decision to grant the increase was announced; it is over two months since it was made applicable in the case of other classes, but yet scale payments to sub-postmasters have not been increased, and night and Sunday telephone attendants have so far not received any bonus increase. As these are extremely lowly paid officers, I would like the Minister to give the House some indication as to when these classes are likely to participate in the bonus increase which was operative in the case of other classes from the 1st January last.

I notice in the Estimate that provision is made for the purchase of uniform clothing. I take it that includes the provision of waterproof protective clothing for outdoor officers. I would like to call the attention of the acting Minister to the fact that very considerable difficulties are being experienced by outdoor officers in carrying out their duties in inclement weather, particularly in western areas, owing to the absence of adequate waterproof protective clothing. The Post Office Stores Department apparently take the view that they cannot get any further waterproof material and, consequently, they are obliged severely to ration the existing supply and to require an extension of the period of wear of articles which have been issued. I would suggest to the Minister that some consideration should be given to the question of purchasing in private shops throughout the country the supplies of waterproof clothing which there exist and which are for sale. The Post Office has to maintain the service. It cannot maintain an effective and efficient service if a person is despatched with mails in the morning and has to remain out for six or seven hours a day in wet weather. It is only a matter of time until that person is seriously ill. If he is an established officer who receives pay during illness from the Post Office, it may be cheaper in the long run for the Department to equip him with protective clothing rather than send him out inadequately protected.

I see waterproof garments in shops although the Post Office Department say they have none in stock or only a very limited quantity in stock. If private traders have waterproof clothing to sell and are willing to sell it, where is the difficulty in the Department purchasing that clothing, holding it and issuing it as required to officers whose protective clothing is not in a serviceable condition? It may be cheaper to do it that way now than to have to do it later on after a substantial bill has been paid by the State for sick leave, brought about by the fact that these officers are not adequately protected against inclement weather, particularly in exposed areas.

A matter that I should like to refer to concerns the manner in which the Minister seems to have dealt with the appointment of a sub-postmaster at Jenkinstown, County Kilkenny.

Under what sub-head does this matter come?

I suggest it would come under the heading of the increased cost of certain engineering equipment.

The cost entailed in shifting the post office from one premises to another—the additional posts and wires necessary, following the transfer of the office.

That is the main point I have in mind. The premises in which the post office business was carried on for generations are still available. When the person who conducted the post office in that district retired some years ago, the individual who was appointed to the vacancy did not reside in the same premises. The person who acquired the premises formerly used as a post office applied for the position, but was not considered satisfactory. Some time last year the person who was appointed by the Minister was not found quite suitable, and certain proceedings were under consideration.

From last July or August until the time when I spoke privately to the Minister on the subject—that was quite recently—the Minister was content to send out from the General Post Office in Kilkenny, week after week, a whole-time civil servant to conduct this little office in Jenkinstown. The owner of the premises in Jenkinstown in which the post office was carried on for generations again applied for the position. He is a Mr. Doran. The Minister again turned down Mr. Doran and made another appointment. This fresh appointment will again entail the erection of additional poles and wires —just the type of equipment that the Minister is seeking additional money to purchase.

I submit that this expenditure is unwarranted and wasteful. I should like to have from the Minister a complete statement as to why, at a time when we are told to practise economy, unnecessary expenditure of this kind is contemplated. If the Minister's statement is not found satisfactory by the people of Kilkenny, I shall be obliged to raise this matter when his annual Estimate is presented for consideration within the next few weeks.

I wish to raise a matter under sub-head E (5), which relates to the conveyance of mails by air. The Minister, on 1st March, started an airgraph service. I should like to know from him why he is getting all the work in connection with this service done on the other side. So far as one can see, there will be a big extension of this type of service in the post-war period and it is a pity that some effort is not made to have all the work carried out in this country.

As I have already explained, I am merely deputising for the Minister who, unfortunately, is indisposed. In the circumstances, I may not be able to satisfy Deputies who have raised points which would probably require more examination than I am able to devote to them at the moment.

The matter raised by Deputy Norton is somewhat complicated. Certain difficulties were met with in the examination of the position, but I am assured that a decision will be available in the course of few days.

And applied?

Yes. As regards the question of protective clothing, the difficulties of the time have to be taken into consideration there. It is not possible at present to get the same amount of clothing or the same numbers of people offering to contract for the supply of that clothing. The suggestion that the protective clothing could be purchased from private shopkeepers is not one, I think, that we could carry very far. First of all, there is the question of quality, and I am sure the Deputy will realise that the protective clothing which has always been given to the Post Office personnel has been of first-class quality. The clothing which would be secured from private shopkeepers would not come up to the standard and the price would be much higher than the price at which we could get the better clothing by contracting in the ordinary way.

In reply to Deputy Pattison, all I can say in respect to that matter is that it would be better if the Deputy raised it on the Estimate proper at a later date. From my own experience I am satisfied that the Post Office appoint the person who in their opinion is best qualified to undertake the position. If the Deputy is not satisfied with that answer, I suggest he should raise the matter again on the main Estimate.

In reply to Deputy Dockrell, I can say that during the time I was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs I saw plans which were being prepared for the conveyance of mail by air. The matter was being pressed forward at that time, but then the war intervened. I presume that at the moment the Department has to avail of whatever facilities are there, but the position in the post-war period will be met by the plans that were prepared some years ago.

Will the Minister say if the person appointed to the Jenkinstown position was appointed from the secretary's office?

All recommendations in respect of these appointments come from the executive section of the Department. The Minister can accept them if he so desires, or he can turn them down and appoint the next best. It is within the Minister's power to make the appointments. The recommendations come from the secretary's department.

Will the Minister say if the most highly qualified person was appointed in this instance?

I presume so.

May I have a definite assurance on that point?

I cannot give an assurance. I suggest the Deputy should raise the matter with the Minister on the main Estimate.

I am not so much concerned about the person appointed as about the cost that has been incurred for the second time. A few years ago additional poles and wires had to be erected and there was no war on at that time. Now we are told that these things are very precious and I should like to know why is it considered necessary to have an extension made to another cottage away up the road, while the premises in which the work was carried on for generations is still available.

I am now informed that the most suitable person was appointed, and that the removal of the apparatus, wires and poles, to which the Deputy has referred, had to follow as a result of the most suitable person being appointed.

Does that mean the most suitable person in the opinion of the Minister, or the most suitable person in the opinion of the Department?

The most suitable person in the opinion of both.

I suggest to the Minister that since the Department is able to purchase bicycle saddles in establishments throughout the country, it should have no difficulty in doing the same thing in respect to waterproof clothing. Ultimately, the Department will be in the position either of purchasing the clothing or doing without it. The Minister cannot contemplate doing without it because in the winter weather that would mean the suspension of services or a rapid and costly increase in sick leave.

I agree with what the Deputy says in respect of its being a costly manner of dealing with it. With regard to the saddles, they probably represent a very small number. Protective clothing, on the other hand, would represent a very large amount. I presume every man has the necessary amount of protective clothing, and has had it for a longer period, perhaps——

Some of it is in ribbons because it cannot be replaced.

That is the answer to the Deputy's question. It cannot be replaced.

I am pointing out to the Minister that the stuff is on sale in shops, and I am asking him why he does not buy it.

Why should we purchase very inferior quality goods when, at a later date, we may be able to secure the type that we are seeking.

Is there any hope of that?

I cannot hold out any hope, but the Department is making every effort in the matter.

Like the fishermen who fished all night and caught nothing.

Supplementary Estimate put and agreed to; reported and agreed to.

Top
Share