Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 May 1953

Vol. 138 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Rooney.)

Mr. O. Flanagan

The general public are aware from the morning newspapers of the intention of the Government to increase postal, telephone and telegram charges. This news, no doubt, does not come as a very severe shock, as the taxpayers have already had many severe shocks from the present Government. This morning's news of the Government's intention to impose further taxation is only a continuance of the present Government's policy of fleecing the taxpayer and imposing unjust and unnecessary taxes on the people.

It is only right that an early opportunity should be availed of in this House to congratulate the Irish Independenton its leading article this morning, in which it registered a very strong protest against this unnecessary increase. On every possible occasion —if it is not the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs it is one of his colleagues —the Government loses no time in coming in here to announce increases of one kind or another. The increases on telephones, telegrams and postage will certainly have a very serious effect on business people. It will have a serious effect, in my opinion, this time 12 months, and I would go so far as to say that a number of people who are now awaiting telephones will cancel their applications in view of those increases. When we see protests coming from all parts of the country against further taxation of any kind, one would imagine that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would have been guided by those protests.

Every day seems to be a Budget daywith Fianna Fáil. They are not content to present to this House an annual Budget imposing taxation, but every month or every week they take pleasure in having a Budget of some kind or other which is intended to impose hardships and burdens upon the people. I do not believe, nor does this Party believe, that the increases which the Minister is about to impose are necessary, and we want to register a very strong protest against the decision to impose these increased charges. We were told by the Taoiseach on 10th February that the people were practically staggering under the load of taxation, and that it was a very severe burden, and, hearing that statement by the Head of the Government, we all took it for granted that the Government had decided to put an end to any further impositions on the people, but, in spite of that statement on 10th February, wireless licences were increased from 12/6 to 17/6 on 13th February. Now we have the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when winding up his speech on his Estimate yesterday, gravely and boldly telling us that it is necessary to impose these additional charges.

The extra charges in respect of the telephone service are going to have very serious adverse effect. The telephone is a very good service. It is a service which is necessary for business and which is necessary in every part of the country, but it is an extraordinary situation that the people should be precluded from using that service because of the prohibitive charges imposed by the Department. We know that postage rates, telephone charges and telephone rentals were increased about two years ago and the telephone subscriber has to pay the whole cost of the outfit and its installation many times over. The time has come when the Government should give consideration to a complete reorganisation of the system of telephone charges. One would imagine that, when the telephone has been installed and the equipment has been paid for, a substantial reduction in the rental would follow, but we find that this charge is a continuing charge and that, in addition to paying for his calls, the subscriber is obliged to paymany times over for the equipment. That is most unfair and, as I say, the time has come when the system should be reorganised, possibly on the lines along which the E.S.B. are reorganising and altering their system of charges for electricity. The system of payment for telephones is entirely out of date.

Mr. Childers

The E.S.B. charges have gone up more.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Yes, but the E.S.B. at present are considering a new system and forms have been sent out to consumers.

Mr. Childers

It will not be 25 per cent. above pre-war—I will make a bet with the Deputy on that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I agree that they have gone up, with the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the Minister could not give me one item that has not gone up since his Government took office. The present Government will scarcely avail of the opportunity of bringing about reductions because it is not their policy to bring about reductions. It is their policy to increase taxation in every possible way.

Not only will the increased postage rates have a very serious effect on business, but they will have a serious effect on the poorest section of our people. They will have a serious effect on people in hospitals, people who are confined to bed in sanatoria, who like to correspond with their friends, and they will impose a hardship on such poor people in hospital who do a crossword puzzle as a pastime and who will now have to pay 3d. to post a letter instead of 2½d. These increased charges will affect even Deputies and will affect them very seriously. Every Deputy will agree with me that the greater part of his allowance goes on postage. In my own case, I spend something like £3 12s. per week on 2½d. stamps and that sum will probably increase now to £4 or £4 2s. 6d. When a Deputy receives a letter from a constituent, he has to write back acknowledging it. He then has to write to the Department and, when he hearsfrom the Department, he again has to write to his constituent. The letter to the Department is free, but the acknowledgment and reply to his constituent cost 2½d each. With a view to assisting Deputies who have to deal with a heavy flow of correspondence, steps should be taken to provide that, when the Government Department sends a reply to him, a franked envelope will be enclosed with the reply which can be addressed by the Deputy to his constituent when transmitting the contents of the Department's reply to him.

Mr. Cunningham

It might be such that he would not wish to transmit it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

So that he can correspond with his constituent and give him the information to prove that he has made the required representations. When the Minister was on this side of the House—I know he is a very good correspondent—he received a very heavy volume of correspondence from his constituency week after week, and for every letter he wrote he was obliged to pay 2½d.

Seldom or ever does the constituent dream of enclosing a stamped addressed envelope. The increase in postage will restrict Deputies in the efficient discharge of their duties.

Last night Deputy Dillon referred to the manner in which appointments are made by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. At the outset, I would like to pay a tribute to the courtesy and kindness that has always been extended, not alone to me but, perhaps, to every Deputy, by the civil servants and secretarial staff of the Minister's Department. I want to protest very determinedly against the manner in which political influence is used in the making of appointments. I defy any Fianna Fáil Deputy to deny that when an auxiliary postman is being appointed, or even when a tender is being accepted for the transport of the post, consideration is given to the political affiliations of the person concerned. I know very well that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is bound on that as a member of his Party. I know very well that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphsattended a Fianna Fáil convention in his constituency quite recently and, in the Minister's presence, his Party passed a resolution asking for all appointments to go to Fianna Fáil supporters. A resolution was passed by a Fianna Fáil convention in Longford Courthouse, at which the Minister was present, asking the Deputies to adhere to the undertaking given by them to support Party nominees for appointments. That resolution was passed unanimously. The Minister has certainly put that resolution into effect and the Post Office has certainly played a noble part in rewarding Fianna Fáil touts for the services they rendered, both to the Minister and to his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is very regrettable that, no matter how competent or qualified a particular applicant may be for a position, qualifications of merit are put aside and the question will be asked: "Who has recommended him?" If recommendations are placed on the report sheet from various Fianna Fáil Deputies that man will be appointed in preference to a person recommended by any other Deputy or anyone else.

Mr. Childers

That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Cunningham

That is not true.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Minister's colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, was also present at the convention in Longford. On the 21st March, 1953, he referred to the resolution that was passed asking for appointments to go to Fianna Fáil. Not being content with supporting it, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Longford Leaderon 21st March, 1953, in the course of which he writes:

"There is nothing wrong with patronage.... Such families were good enough to go out and canvass and collect for us and work at elections for us. All they ask in return, and this is where I and Frank Carter and my colleague——

probably meaning the Minister—stand four-square with them, is that they should not be deserted in favour of someone who did in the past and will do in future everything in his or her power to put Eamon de Valera, Seán Lemass and the rest of us, out of public life."

The letter went on to say:—

"This is a statement of common sense and fair play understood by the man in the street.

Mise, le meas,

S. Ó Cinneide."

Mr. Childers

Deputy Dillon approved of that last night.

Mr. Hickey

He approved of it?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. O. Flanagan

This is a letter in which it has been stated by responsible officers of the present Government that this state of affairs should prevail. I do not care who agrees with it, I certainly do not agree with it. It is a bad principle for any Government to follow. It is an unwise principle. It is unsound and bad for the service in general. If the Post Office is to be the resting-place and happy hunting-ground of political touts of the Minister, from Westmeath and Longford or from any other constituency, it is bringing the Post Office down to the lowest depths of indecency.

Mr. Childers

There is no such thing.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If there is no such thing the Minister did not speak against it when a resolution was unanimously passed by his own supporters in Longford and I did not see that the Minister took steps to contradict or to deny the letter which appeared in the Longford Leaderof the 21st March, 1953, signed by his colleague and fellow Deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, when he states, “Who else would we give our jobs to?”

If an inquiry or investigation was held into the appointment of any postmistress or of any auxiliary postman in the constituency of Longford-Westmeath I bet these appointments were made on the recommendations of twoof the Minister's colleagues representing Longford and Westmeath. We are only giving Longford and Westmeath as one example. We know this is quite general throughout the country. It is most unfair. It is unfortunate that a responsible Minister should be swayed by his political supporters one way or the other. An end will come to this type of tactics and the sooner it comes, the better, because the cleaner we have public appointments, the sounder we will have them. Then, when consideration of political affiliations does not enter into the appointment we will have the right man in the right position.

I want to direct the Minister's attention to mail-car service tenders. The Minister told us that he is exercising economy in his Department and that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is being run at the present time on as economic lines as possible in the present circumstances. Could the Minister give a satisfactory explanation as to why, when tenders are invited for mail-car service, the lowest tender will not be accepted and, in all the circumstances, does the Department of Finance approve of the Minister rejecting the lowest tender, because in many areas the lowest tender has been rejected because of the intervention of political influence?

Mr. Childers

There is no intervention in contracts for mail-cars, none whatever, in my Department.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I have a letter here dated 12th March, 1953, from the Minister's Department and the last paragraph of the letter states:

"In all public notices advertising mail-car contracts and in the tender forms completed by applicants it is indicated that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs does not undertake to accept the lowest or any tender."

Why does he not accept the lowest tender? Naturally, if the Minister is determined to run his Department efficiently and to run it on the cheapest possible lines, is not one man's mail-car the same as another, one man's transport the same as another, oneman's service as good as another? We see that the lowest tenders are not being accepted because of political outlook or affiliations.

Mr. Childers

There is no political interference in contracts in my Department of any kind—good bad or indifferent.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I would not expect the Minister to say that there is.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy must accept my statement because at least he will keep his hand off the contracts department of the Post Office, in which there has been an unvarying and magnificent record.

Mr. O. Flanagan

All I have to go on——

Mr. McGrath

Is the Deputy going to withdraw the statement against the Minister?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister says that there is no patronage in contracts.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Yes, there is.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy quoted a formula at the end of a contract form. Whether that is a sort of stock phrase or not has not been stated. The Minister says there is no patronage. The Deputy must withdraw that statement.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If the Chair insists on my withdrawing the statement I will withdraw it but I do not accept the Minister's word.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is repeating the same thing all over again.

General Mulcahy

I do not want to go into the merits of this matter at all, but if the Minister said that in regard to the appointment of sub-postmasters in the country there was no political patronage would a Deputy who stated that be required to withdraw that statement? What I object to is a precedent being established here, that where a Deputy charges a Minister with indulging in political patronage in any section of his Department because the Minister says it does nothappen the statement should be withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy allow me? The reason I intervened was that Deputy Flanagan quoted a phrase in a letter as indicating patronage. That is the only reason asked him to withdraw. He quoted a phrase at the end of a letter, that the lowest or any tender was not necessarily accepted. The Minister indicated that Deputy Flanagan used the phrase as an indication of patronage and therefore I asked the Deputy to withdraw it.

General Mulcahy

From the point of order, it seems to me that it is for the Minister or somebody else taking part in the discussion to make the point that what was stated by the Deputy does not bear out his case and not for the Chair to rule it out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not saying whether it is a good point or not. The Minister, as I understand, indicated that that phrase was no indication that there was political patronage and I have asked the Deputy to withdraw it because of that.

General Mulcahy

I think there is an argument——

Mr. Childers

I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition——

General Mulcahy

I am not getting into the argument on the merits of this. I am dealing entirely with the point of order. If it were said here that the Minister was using political patronage in the making of some appointments of sub-postmasters and some kind of formula was quoted and the Minister denied that, I do not think from the point of view of order that a Deputy should be made to withdraw it. It is a question of producing adequate evidence for the statement and simply because the Minister denies the statement I do not think that is a ground for withdrawal.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not taking it that way. The Deputy quoted a particular phrase. As I understood it, the Minister pointed out that thephrase did not indicate political patronage. I asked the Deputy to withdraw it as he was basing his argument on that phrase because the Minister said that that phrase did not indicate political patronage.

General Mulcahy

I respectfully submit from the point of view of precedent that that means the Chair getting into the merits of the argument rather than dealing with it from the point of view of order.

Mr. McGrath

The Deputy indicated that the Minister was giving contracts by patronage and quoted words which are contained in every contract form throughout the country, that the lowest tender is not necessarily accepted. He definitely indicated that the Minister was giving contracts by patronage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only reason I intervened was because in quoting that phrase Deputy Flanagan charged that patronage in contracts was the policy of the Department. The Minister denied that such was the meaning of the phrase. The Minister's statement must be accepted.

Mr. Childers

I want to try to preserve the reputation not only of the Office of Public Works, but of the Post Office which has been maintained by all Governments in this State. I pay tribute to the Opposition as well as to those on this side of the House.

General Mulcahy

All I am doing is preserving the honest freedom of debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair accepts that. I am asking Deputy Flanagan not to base his case on that phrase as the Minister denies that that phrase is used to indicate patronage.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I accept your ruling. In cases where the lowest tender is not accepted, I think that some information should be given to public representatives as to the reason why the lowest tender is not accepted. There are one or two cases in my constituency in regard to which it is well known locally that attempts were made to debar certain appointments or the acceptance of certain tenders whichwere the lowest. Even though we have information that they were the lowest tenders and that the best possible service was offered the Minister, for some unknown reason, rejected the tenders. When we have a Government making an appeal for economy and for saving and telling the people that, owing to the financial strain, they must impose an additional burden of taxation and, on the other hand, when they are offered services at lower costs and refuse to accept them, it is open to very grave suspicion. There is suspicion as to why the lowest tenders are not accepted.

The Minister in his speech made no reference to the number of dismissals which have taken place in his Department, either of sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses or postmen during the past year because some charge was brought against them by the Department. I understand that there were quite a number of dismissals and of changes and that criminal proceedings were taken in some cases during the past year where inspectors discovered that accounts were not in order. In my opinion most of these irregularities which people have been guilty of were brought about by the fact that they were underpaid. There is a great temptation when dealing with public money. The temptation is there no matter how strongly people may fight against it.

In the case of some sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses, even those in the unfortunate position of having the post office taken from them, irregularities are due to the fact that they are lowly paid and are open to temptation in having public money under their hands. I think sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses should be paid sufficient to render them independent so that they would not be open to the temptation of occasionally dipping into the funds of the Department. I have known cases, too, where the Department's inspectors took a very serious view of the fact that those in charge of post office who were well-to-do and financially sound showed a small deficit in the accounts when they were checked by the inspector. Very serious note was takenof that and in some cases very drastic action, even though these people had good banking accounts and were financially sound themselves.

Mr. Carter

Is the Deputy advocating that they should be allowed to interfere with public money?

Mr. O. Flanagan

Far from it.

Mr. Carter

I think that the Deputy is going very near that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

My point is that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses should be in receipt of sufficient to make them independent of temptation.

Mr. Carter

Otherwise they should take the public money.

Mr. O. Flanagan

They should not take public money. Far from it. I say that in cases where a sub-postmaster or a sub-postmistress has a good banking account and is financially independent I do not see why the Department should take a very serious view if they are short in the accounts say 10/- or £1.

Mr. Carter

The Department should condone it in other words.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Probably Deputy Carter would like to see these people convicted and one of his own friends appointed to such a position in accordance with the Longford Leader.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy then is advocating that they should be allowed to pilfer.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Hickey

No. Deputy would advocate the pilfering of public money. I do not care on what side of the House he is; no Deputy would advocate that and I will not take that from any Deputy no matter on what side of the House he happens to be.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy Flanagan is advocating that when people take Post Office money they should be leniently dealt with.

Mr. Hickey

He is advocating that they should be given a proper wageso that they will not be open to temptation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan on the Estimate.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not care how Deputy McGrath or Deputy Carter twist my statements. They are accustomed to doing that. I want sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses properly paid so that they will be free from the temptation of dipping into public money.

Mr. Gallagher

I said that last night but I put it in the proper way.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Maybe the Deputy can express himself better than I can.

Mr. Gallagher

I put it in the proper way.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan is entitled to make his speech in his own way without interruption so long as he does not contravene the Rules of Order.

Mr. O. Flanagan

During the past year the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has altered addresses in connection with a scheme of reorganisation of postal services and in altering these addresses they have caused not alone considerable inconvenience but a great deal of annoyance and confusion. I had to raise this matter here by way of parliamentary question some weeks ago because of the inconvenience and annoyance caused in parts of Offaly. People living close to Tullamore do not know from their correspondence whether they are in Tullamore, Birr, Edenderry or Daingean. I do not know who advised the Minister on this matter or where he secured his information but it is ridiculous that the postal district for Rhode, which is only four miles from Edenderry, should now be Tullamore considering that Tullamore is 20 miles from Rhode. Obviously the address should be Rhode, Offaly, or Rhode, Edenderry. Possibly under this scheme of reorganisation correspondence may be delivered somewhat more quickly but people who are calling to these places and who are following the postal address find that if they visit Tullamorelooking for Rhode they still have something like 20 miles to travel before they get there. I think that is absolutely ridiculous.

The same argument applies in the case of Croghan, which is only a few miles from Edenderry and 20 miles from Tullamore. Yet the postal address is now Croghan, Tullamore. That to me is absolutely absurd. I have already cited the case of a Land Commission inspector who came down to visit some people in Croghan three or four months ago. He was new to the district. The address he had was Croghan, Tullamore, Offaly. In his car he drove to Tullamore, passed through Croghan, Daingean and Ballinagar and into Tullamore. On reaching Tullamore he inquired if he was near Croghan and he was directed back through Ballinagar and Daingean to Croghan. I do not know whether the same inconvenience is being caused all over.

Under the new scheme the address for Shannonharbour is Shannonharbour, Birr. Anyone who goes to Birr looking for Shannonharbour will have a long way to travel before they reach Shannonharbour. Shannonharbour is more convenient to Banagher or Ballinasloe than it is to Birr. The present address—Shannonharbour, Birr —is in my opinion ridiculous. I think the nearest town should be taken instead of the town that is farthest away.

Mr. Childers

That could double the cost of the delivery.

Mr. O. Flanagan

No matter what the cost of delivery may be, I think it would save considerable inconvenience and the people would be better pleased and more satisfied.

Mr. Childers

There we have it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

This scheme of new addresses is causing considerable inconvenience. Possibly in time the people will become accustomed to it. I am pleased with the report submitted by the Minister in relation to the erection of kiosks and pillar boxes. He told us that 38 telephone kiosks were erected last year and over 22 to date this year. In 1951 23 kiosks wereerected and in 1950 31 kiosks. Something like 93 pillar boxes have been erected during the year. That is a step in the right direction.

The best postal facilities possible should be provided in the rural areas. It is a tremendous advantage to the rural community to have pillar boxes and if a postal van is passing through the district I think arrangements should be made for that van to collect the mail from these pillar boxes, thereby further conveniencing the local people.

One village in my constituency is severely handicapped through lack of adequate telephone facilities. I refer to the village of Cloghan. I have endeavoured to get to the root of the trouble there but so far I have failed to do so. The Gardaí do not seem to be co-operating with the general public. Time and again an appeal has been made here to have a public kiosk erected in the village but we have always been told that such a kiosk would not pay. Recently there was a fire in the district. There was no telephone in the village by means of which one could summon the brigade, and the telephone in the Garda barracks had closed down. The general public do not meet with the courtesy one would expect from the Gardaí.

I appeal to the Minister to examine the position there in view of the fact that the Gardaí are not anxious to facilitate the general public. There was a meeting of the county council recently at which complaints were made about this matter. I think those complaints were forwarded to the Minister. In addition to that Deputy O'Higgins and I have made representations on the matter over a long period. I would be grateful if the Minister could see his way to giving special consideration to the village of Cloghan in connection with telephone facilities. The position as regards telephone facilities in parts of Offaly is far from being perfect.

In the course of his speech the Minister referred to the speeding-up of trunk calls and said that the service generally has been improved. I find that there is very little improvement in the Midlands. There is a substantial delayin calls from the Midlands to Dublin and there is an equally long delay in regard to calls from the Midlands to the South.

The Minister continues in his report that there have been 7,000 more phones. I venture to say that the Minister will not have a similar report to make this time 12 months. The increased charges and the very severe rental charges will prevent many people who are now awaiting telephones from availing of them and steps will be taken by some people to have the telephone withdrawn.

I want to compliment the Minister on the very excellent standard of the new post office in St. Andrew Street. As a post office, it is second to none in Europe. The staff there are very efficient and kind. The manner in which the building is laid out is excellent. Very great credit must go to the architects and officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs who have been responsible for the erection of such a fine and spacious building and very great credit must also be given in respect of the service and attention which is rendered by the staff in that post office.

The General Post Office in O'Connell Street, Dublin, has been cleaned and redecorated. I must say that that has not been done before its time. There must have been cobwebs there since 1916. It is regrettable that that very fine building was allowed to go without redecoration and repair for such a long time. Perhaps the Minister or the Secretary of the Department would give very serious attention to the following matter. If you visit the General Post Office at night time you will find that between 8 and 10.30 p.m., there are generally long queues waiting at different counters for attention. Some of the queues are for the purchase of stamps. I have often wondered why the Department do not put at least one or two extra persons on duty there at night. In that way the people would be able to get very quick service and would not be delayed in the rush to post their mail.

In addition, it would relieve somewhat the pressure of work on the remaining officers on duty. Certainly,the service in the General Post Office is excellent. The officers are helpful and extremely obliging. I am sure that if the Minister visits the General Post Office in the late evening he will find long queues waiting for attention and in addition he will see that the officers on duty, though extremely busy, are very anxious to cope with the rush. I appeal to the Minister and to the Secretary of the Department to consider seriously the question of putting an additional man or two on duty in the General Post Office in the late evenings.

Considerable inconvenience is experienced in country districts as a result of the Post Office half-holiday. Nobody is against Post Office people having a half-holiday but the fact is that generally business people who have business to transact at the Post Office come away very depressed on the afternoon of the half-holiday when they find that the building in which they require to do their business is closed. The Minister might consider, where post offices in country towns have their weekly half-holidays, the desirability of issuing licences to people to sell stamps in those towns. I do not know if the Minister has any information in the matter but I should like to know how many licences for the sale of stamps were issued in the past 12 months. The general public experience considerable inconvenience when the post office opens for only five minutes before closing time. That also entails additional inconvenience for those who run the post office.

The general public who require stamps, postal orders, and so forth cannot have these facilities on the post office half day. I wonder if an arrangement could be arrived at whereby the post office assistants would have their half-day on one particular day of the week and the postmaster or postmistress would have his or her half-day on another day of the week? In that way the building would always be open for the general public. These post offices generally close for the half-day on the very day that the people are busy. For that reason, some steps should be taken to ensure that as manypersons as possible who apply for licences to sell stamps will be given these licences.

I am very glad to note that arrangements have been made to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Robert Emmet by the issue of a new stamp. I have raised that matter in the House here time and time again.

I join with Deputy Corish in his reference to the extraordinary size of the Moore and Tóstal stamps. These new commemoration stamps should be the same size as the ordinary small 2½d. stamp to which we have been accustomed in the past. The Thomas Moore stamp and the Tóstal stamp are big, cumbersome and awkward. I trust that the Emmet stamp will not be spoiled and that it will be the ordinary size instead of the ridiculous size which some of our recent stamps have been.

With regard to Post Office staffs in my constituency, it is essential that serious consideration be given to the claims of the clerical officers in the Post Office. I am sure the Minister is actively engaged in consideration of that matter at the present time. They are very good workers and they put all their energy into their work. They are most obliging and extremely helpful but they have a very difficult time and they have a very responsible position. They hold a position of respect, responsibility and trust. Many of those clerical officers are married men with families. Some of them have to pay very big rents and rates while others of them have to pay back the loans which they raised in respect of the purchase of their houses.

I appeal to the Minister to urge on the Minister for Finance that, no matter who else is put at a loss, the clerical officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will receive a substantial increase in pay. Those men have a very good claim. I have received representations from the Post Office Workers' Union of Birr and even from the Post Office Workers' Union of Tullamore. They are clerical workers. Their branches of the union have asked the Minister and us, as Deputies, to forward their case and to direct the attention of the Government to the responsible position which theyhold. They ask that, in recognition of their good service to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, they be given the benefit of a substantial increase in pay.

Through the Minister, I desire to pay a particular tribute to the chief engineer in the Waterford area. I have seen considerable improvements carried out in my constituency as a result of the operations of the engineering staff in the Waterford area. It is only right that a tribute should be paid to the workmen in the engineering staff in the Waterford area. They worked all during Christmas Eve, and they even worked late, in that part of my constituency which borders Carlow, putting wires underground so that a new scheme of rural electrification could be opened up for Christmas. Representations were made by the E.S.B. to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to have that work carried out.

In the beginning, the Department did not realise the urgency of the work. They did not realise that the people in the area in question had dismantled their old lighting apparatus and that they were expecting the operation of the rural electrification scheme on Christmas Day. I recall contacting the chief engineer in Waterford who, in turn, contacted the chief engineer in Dublin. The engineering staff worked all day on Christmas Eve. They did a very good job to the entire credit of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

In addition to the claims of the clerical workers, I would also ask that the claims of members of the engineering section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs—many of whom are very far from being overpaid—would receive serious and sympathetic consideration. The Portlaoighise branch of the Irish Post Office Engineering Workers' Union have asked those Deputies who represent Leix-Offaly to direct the serious attention of the Minister to their present plight in view of the high cost of living.

I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind the claims of the Irish Engineering Workers' Union and the Post Office Clerical Association so that not only will they receive favourable considerationbut that payments will be made at increased rates to members of those unions with the least possible delay. It must not be forgotten that these people have received no increase since the last Budget, which is almost 12 months ago, and that since that time the cost of living has gone up by leaps and bounds. For that purpose, I would ask the Minister to see that increases in pay are given to those people.

I understand that the reasons why the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has gone up is because of the increase in the amount paid for petrol for the Post Office vans, increases in rates and also increases in the interest charges on money for Post Office development schemes. Certainly the Minister must take the responsibility because those charges are due to Government policy. The increases in petrol brought about by the last Budget have certainly now reacted as far as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is concerned. In part of the Minister's speech he deals with rates of interest that have to be paid on moneys for the development schemes of the Department. That, again, is certainly part of the Government's policy which we on this side of the House believe to have been a step in the wrong direction, has caused prices to go up, increased taxation and increased charges upon the services which are now a burden and are unnecessary.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should read the figures. The deficit was larger before any of these increases took place.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I would like to ask the Minister to give an explanation in connection with a statement made at the end of his speech: "The new postal and telephone charges will be implemented by the issue of statutory Orders. Before the telegraph charges can be introduced, however, a new Telegraph Act will be required, and in order that they may be brought into force on the 1st August, it is essential that the new Act should be passed before that date. A short Bill for the purpose will be introduced at an early date and it is hoped to have it passed expeditiously."

Why the speed in the passage of this Bill? Why does the Minister hope that it will be passed in all this hurry? We on this side of the House will oppose it very strongly and strenuously. We believe it is unnecessary and unjust. We are satisfied there is a sufficient burden of taxation on the people and we are not going to subscribe in any shape or form to the speedy passing of any legislation which is going to impose any further hardship on our people.

The Minister has not explained to the House the reason why he wants this Bill passed so quickly. It is a complete departure from right and proper procedure as followed in the introduction of Estimates in the past. It is unjust that he should tell us that these charges are going to be increased and give us no idea what the increases are to be. I hope the Minister, when replying, will tell the general public why the increases were imposed. I doubt if the Minister wants to have those increases made known before the Budget, but as far as he and his Government are concerned, every week seems to be Budget week and the sooner they are put out of office the better. The sooner the Minister is put out of office and relieved of his responsibilities as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the better. The people will have to pay less for postage. They will have more telephone facilities, more pillar boxes and they will have to pay less. We believe these charges are unjust and that the Department can do without them.

The call of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is only one call of the many that have been made repeatedly by Ministers for increased taxes. I believe the Minister is one of a group of 13 highwaymen legalised in the form of a Government. This Government and the Minister as one of the members of that Government have carried on with the typical methods of highwaymen, imposing severe taxes on the community.

Mr. Carter

On a point of order. Is it in order for Deputies of this Houseto call each and every individual in the Government a highwayman?

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that it has political significance. It is quite undesirable that these expressions should be used but it is not in a personal capacity.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I was pointing out that they were safeguarded by the fact that they were legalised by terming themselves as a Government but that the manner in which they were attacking the unfortunate taxpayer was similar to the activities of highwaymen. They have certainly dipped their hands down as deeply as they possibly could into the pockets of the taxpayers. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is dipping his fingers down into the pockets of the telephone subscribers, the users of postage stamps and the senders of telegrams.

Mr. Fanning

The Deputy must be in the habit of dipping his own fingers down.

Mr. Childers

The charges will relieve the taxpayer.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Can the Minister explain to me how the taxpayer is going to be relieved by having to pay more for his telephone calls, more for his telegrams and more for his postage stamps? I certainly cannot understand how he is going to be relieved. Does every taxpayer not use a 2½d. stamp from time to time? Does every taxpayer not have to call upon the services of the telephone and does not every taxpayer from time to time have to send a telegram, even the very poorest of the poor?

Mr. Childers

They are not called taxes in any civilised country.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is all the same what you call them when they have to come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may have a new name for taxes. He may have a new name for any increases that may have been imposed for telephones, postage stamps, parcels, telegrams and whatever other Post Office services the members of the community may haveto avail of, but we call them taxes. He can call them what he likes. I say they are taxes and they are unnecessary taxes being imposed upon the people.

Mr. Carter

They will make a Minister for Finance out of you.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We are prepared to oppose, tooth and nail, the manner in which the present Government have contented themselves with presenting weekly and monthly Budgets, not being content with the annual Budget. Lastly, I would ask the Minister to examine particularly the question of the provision of a new sub-post office for Bracknagh, County Offaly. I understand Bord na Móna have provided a large scheme of houses in that area and that there is no post office in the district. Representations have been made for the erection of a post office there, and I would ask the Minister to expedite this as far as possible.

In conclusion, may I say that if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs decides to leave over the statutory Order imposing the increases in stamps and postage, and if he leaves over the Bill he is about to introduce to increase telegraph charges until after the two by-elections in order to test the opinion of the people on these matters, and after the by-elections if he decides to face the electorate in a general election and see whether the people are prepared to meet those taxes, I can guarantee there will be no increase whatever in the stamp, no increase in parcel post and no increase in telephone charges, and we can prove, as we proved before, that we can run this country well and economically——

Mr. Carter

On borrowed money.

Mr. O. Flanagan

—and run it not with 86,000 people unemployed? We can prove that this country can be run well and efficiently without having to impose these unjust and unnecessary taxes on the people. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs states that he cannot run the Post Office Department without imposing these taxes. If he is concerned for the interests of the people, why do not he and his colleaguessay: "We cannot do it. We will chuck in and we will let the people who can run it do so in the interests of the people. We know the people cannot pay higher charges. We know the people have been put to the pin of their collar already?" The Government tell us that they cannot give us any better or cheaper services. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we have a policy, that we can offer better services, that we can give cheap and efficient services as a result of economy properly exercised. The difference is that the Government cannot do that. When you know you cannot do it, why not be honest with the people, pack up and get out before they throw you out?

Mr. Childers

Deputy Corish raised the charges twice and left us to implement a proposal to raise them a third time. That is the answer to the Deputy.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not believe it.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Flanagan waxes eloquent in regard to the iniquity of increasing the charges for Post Office services. He has told us that the Opposition would not do that if they were in power. We know that in the past the Opposition adopted a policy like that and we are still groaning under the burden which has been the result of that policy. The Minister told us yesterday that the proposed increases are mainly due to increased wages and salaries. These increased wages and salaries followed directly from the policy of the Coalition. The Budget of last year, which had to provide for a shortage of £15,000,000 left by the Coalition, was another contributing fact.

In the same breath as he denounced increased charges, Deputy Flanagan advocated increased wages and salaries for the staffs. How is he going to make us believe that he really has his feet on the earth at all, that he is not living in fairyland, if he thinks that charges can be reduced and at the same time increased expenditure incurred in the way he has suggested, without paying for it by some method? I should like to ask him, and also DeputyA. Byrne who made exactly the same case yesterday, does he think that the Post Office services should be paid for by the person who uses them or paid for in the form of taxes by the person who does not use them? It seems to me that services such as these should certainly be paid for by the people who use them. To advocate that they should be paid for by the general taxpayer seems to me like asking your next-door neighbour to pay your gas bill or your electricity bill.

I see no reason on earth why people who avail of these services should not pay a legitimate charge to cover the costs incurred which should not fall on the general taxpayers. Of course Deputy Flanagan referred to them as taxes. He apparently has a very peculiar idea of what taxation is. Apparently, he thinks that because certain services are run by the Government the charges made by the Government for the use of these services should be regarded as taxation and that every increase made in the charges should be regarded as increased taxation. I wonder would he regard an increase in electricity charges or gas charges as an increase in taxation? The imposition of these charges, regrettable though it may be, is an attempt to try to make the Post Office pay its way. I am not objecting to the increased pay for Post Office staff but I realise that if men get increased pay, it has to be covered in some way and I think that the sooner Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Byrne face up to the fact, that if men are given increases in pay the money must be found somewhere, the better. They are not fooling anybody by the way they talk.

Deputy Flanagan also spoke of the iniquity of Fianna Fáil in regard to political patronage. I think that after the experience of Baltinglass, in regard to an appointment under the very same Department we are discussing, any Deputy on the other side should be slow to make charges like that. We have had only recently, under the present Minister, the Ballinalee episode. I wonder is it Deputy Flanagan's outlook that everybodywho is a supporter of Fianna Fáil is an outcast and that he should not be given any part in the running of this country at all? After all, we represent practically 50 per cent. of the people. Is that 50 per cent. of the people, because they have a certain political outlook, not to have any rights or any employment at all under the Government? That is, as far as I can see, the mentality of Deputy Flanagan and of people who talk as he does.

So far as I am concerned I have had experience of that before we ever had a native Government here. We have had experience of that feeling against the native Irish in all our history. If Deputy Flanagan wants to continue that policy against Fianna Fáil, he will know all about it. If a man who is good enough and strong enough to support the opinions and policy of Fianna Fáil is to be outlawed, we can have it on that plane and we know where we stand. In any event, our people have shown that they are quite as competent, or more competent, to do work for this country than the Opposition ever have been.

We have not put the country into debt which was the main achievement of the Opposition during the three years they were in office. We have a programme and a history of achievement behind us from the time we were first elected of which we can be proud and of which our supporters are proud. If because of that, Deputy Flanagan thinks that our supporters are to be outlawed, and are not to take their place in competition with others to carry on the work of the State, he is making a big mistake. Nobody has yet produced as outrageous a case of patronage as that in Baltinglass. So far as I can see the whole outlook of the Opposition is not whether a man is fit for the job or whether he is the best man for the job; if he is a Fianna Fáil supporter that is enough apparently to rule him out in the minds of Opposition speakers. I hope that all members of the Opposition are not of that mind. I hope that that mentality will not develop amongst them because it could do infinite damage to this country. There is room for the whole of us, room for more of us, and if thatoutlook were to develop it would certainly have serious effects and would not be in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister draws attention on page four of his introductory speech on this Estimate to the question of reorganisation and the improvement of postal deliveries in rural areas. On the Estimate last year I drew attention, and my colleague from South Cork, Deputy Lehane, again last night drew attention, to the important fact that in the Bandon postal district unfortunately the people are still in the position of receiving mail only three days a week. I know that a few years ago progress was undoubtedly made in connection with the improvement of postal delivery service in County Cork. Very satisfactory service has been given in a large part of the area. I think I can also say that at that period it was hoped that in regard to the Bandon postal district, particularly the area around Enniskeane and Newcestown, the improved postal service would be given to the people long before now. The person who was responsible for pressing that scheme forward has since gone to his eternal reward. He was a man from the particular area in question and he knew the difficulties facing the people in the locality. It was not simply from a partisan point of view that he was prepared to recommend to the Minister a daily delivery service in the area. He recommended it because of the difficulties facing the people in some of these remote areas. While the Minister mentioned the improvements that had taken place in some areas, particularly in the midland and western areas no mention was made of the areas in County Cork.

Practically every Deputy who spoke referred to the problem confronting the auxiliary postman. It may be said that repetition can become wearisome but, having regard to the fact that Deputies on all sides of the House realise the unfair position of the auxiliary postman, surely it is time for us, no matter what Party is in power or what Minister holds the post of Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to face up to this problem? I know it is a big problem, and that it will probably be hard to getover but no one can deny the fact that these men, who are paid roughly on a basis which works out at two and a half or three hours per day, are actually working on a time basis and a time limit. I know that inspectors who travelled a particular area checked the times taken by the postmen. As I mentioned last year, I have nothing in the world against these inspectors doing their job. I believe they do their job fairly and honestly. Unfortunately, on some of the occasions when these inspectors check on the time, it may happen that the day is one on which delivery is much lighter than on other occasions. I know that has been the cause of much dissatisfaction with auxiliary postmen in the rural areas. I know of cases where unjust treatment was meted out unintentionally to these men owing to this unsatisfactory system.

The Minister may say that these men can do other work during the day, but in that connection two difficulties arise. One of these difficulties is that many of these men have already given the best years of their lives in service to the Post Office in an auxiliary capacity and are not in a position to do much by the time they finish in the afternoon. The second of these difficulties is that, even in the case of young men, many are residing in an area where they are not in a position to avail of alternative employment during the afternoon. I would suggest that the percentage of auxiliary postmen who can gain by alternative employment during the afternoons is negligible. The problem of the auxiliary postmen is one of our greatest problems and is one that must be tackled and solved.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned one matter with which I cannot say I am in agreement. He referred to the matter of the half-day in various areas and he stressed the inconvenience it might cause to would-be customers. We all remember—it was not so very long ago—when the system was introduced whereby there would be no postal delivery on Christmas days. When that system was introduced it seemed as if it was going to mean the end of the world. Some people, who seem to love poring over their Christmascards on Christmas Day, thought they were being treated most unjustly. They forgot, of course, the handicap placed on the postman who, before the system was introduced, was denied the right of having Christmas Day to himself. No one now complains of the fact that they are not receiving mails on Christmas Day. I fail to see why the granting of a half-day is going to cause trouble or inconvenience to people in the towns whether they are ordinary people or business people.

We have got to realise the fact that every shop enjoys the right of a half-day. People coming to town from the rural areas must keep uppermost in their mind the fact that on a particular day the shops are closed. Accordingly, they switch their day of business to avoid going to town on the half-day. Every sub-post office should have a half-day and it would be better were the half-day a recognised day of the week. If that were done, I do not see how it would lead to confusion. These people are entitled to the half-day and if we had the one recognised half-day throughout the Twenty-Six Counties, there would be no confusion and people would not be placed at a disadvantage in connection with any proposed business they might have to do.

When we draw attention to improving the lot of the auxiliary postman and improving our postal services, the Minister may in turn wish to remind us of the whole tenor of his statement. In one sense the statement made by the Minister may be considered extraordinary. I have no intention of directing any personal remarks to an individual as such. Let us avoid that and face up to this problem as we should. If we were to examine the statements made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs during the past year or year and a half we would not be surprised at the line taken in the introduction of this Estimate. Let me say this much. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is an admirable Department in which the work is carried out in a most efficient manner.

In approaching this subject it wouldbe well for us, if we have criticisms to offer, to make it clear that these criticisms are directed to the policy of the Minister and his Government towards that Department. I believe this is one Department that could be run practically without a Minister at all in so far as it has a background of integrity and smooth working. That being so, no Minister can come into this House and say he has a terrible job trying to keep that Department going. The Minister adopted a line which was in itself a picture of gloom and despair.

I do not blame the Minister for that because he is following a line of thought of his own. But he laid particular stress on the problem of losses, on his utter determination to wipe them out and to introduce a system of profit. He did mention that, in the year 1946-47, there was an overall balance of profit of £85,000. I believe that we are entitled to tell the Minister that we differ with his approach to that problem. Undoubtedly, the statement he made goes to show that progress has been made in his Department within the last few years on work of a capital nature. We differ with him in his approach to the problem of finance, of meeting the repayment of the capital sums borrowed in connection with the admirable amount of work that has been done. We cannot agree with the Minister's suggestion in regard to losses.

Mr. Childers

Then change the system, Deputy.

Mr. Desmond

As regards the statement we had from the Minister, he had, of course, the advantage of getting excellent advice and plenty of time to prepare it. He drew our attention to the fact that in Great Britain, over a period of five years, the increased charges there showed a drop in profit from £20,000,000 to £5,000,000. We are entitled to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that experience has shown in Great Britain that the policy of increased charges resulted ultimately in a loss of profit. Are we to assume that the remedy for our problem here is to be found inincreased charges? The Minister drew our attention to the position in other countries, such as America. When the Minister went to such pains to do that, I suggest that he should have given us some information as to what the position was in America, in connection with services such as we are dealing with here, before the increases were put into effect there. If we had that information, then our approach might be tempered by a different view. Since we did not get that information we are entitled to put our point of view before the Minister.

In connection with the losses, would the Minister tell us the amount of work that is being done by his Department for the Department of Social Welfare? I want him to tell me the remuneration which his Department is getting from the Department of Social Welfare for the tremendous amount of work which it is doing for that Department.

Mr. Childers

It is getting credit for that.

Mr. Desmond

I should like to know from the Minister to what extent his Department is getting credit. We all know the use that can be made of figures. I imagine we would be better off if we had not to try and base our case on figures alone but rather on common sense. I maintain that, despite the credits which may be shown in this Estimate for the tremendous amount of work which, of necessity, the Minister's Department is doing for the Department of Social Welfare, his Department is not getting sufficient remuneration for that work from the Department of Social Welfare. It may be that finance—I do not mean the Department of Finance— may dictate that policy in order to keep down the figures to be submitted for the Department of Social Welfare, and so they are just tacked on to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Childers

No.

Mr. Desmond

I am convinced otherwise.

Mr. Childers

We get £860,000.

Mr. Desmond

I maintain that, likethe auxiliary postmen, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is not being paid adequately for the work it is doing for the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister mentioned, as regards the increases, the introduction of a system of motor taxation for State vehicles. Is that not really a case of taking money from one pocket and putting it into the other? The Department of Local Government may benefit by the switching of figures in that way. If the Department of Posts and Telegraphs must pay another Department for the taxation of its vehicles, what is the cost going to be?

Mr. Childers

We must help to meet the cost of repairing the roads. We were never asked to do so before.

Mr. Desmond

Is there not a touch of irony about the fact that one Department of State, which is losing money, should have to hand over money to another Department? I believe that we are just joking when we switch figures around in that way from one Department to another, just to try and balance the books in each Department and in order to justify the claims of a particular Department. I may have something more to say on that when we come to deal with other Estimates. I do want to say that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should know that there are other Departments of State whose Estimates could probably be reduced without causing any hardship on the people of the country—much more so than in the case of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

A number of Deputies have already stated, and I believe it is quite true, that, in regard to the proposed increased charges on postal services, telegrams and telephones, it is not the privileged few or the small minority who will have to meet them. Does anyone imagine that, if these increases come into effect, it is the business people who are going to meet them? Do we not all know that it has always been the policy, and probably always will be, of business people to pass on these increases to the consumer in an indirect or in a direct way? It does not follow at all that these increases will be met directly by the people usingthe services. As Deputy Flanagan has stated, whether we call these increases taxes, or give them any other name, the fact is that they will of necessity mean an increase on the people of the country as a whole.

The Minister mentioned the admirable progress that is being made in connection with buildings and the installation of telephones. One must agree that these new buildings were badly needed. I think all of us will agree that the building work done should have been tackled not within the last few years but many years ago. The Minister pointed out that this was work of a capital nature, and mentioned that the repayments will extend over a period of 20 years. I differ with the view of the Minister and of other members of his Party on that because I believe that the repayment should extend over a much longer period. I should like to say that admirable work was done in connection with the general post office in Cork. Is anyone going to suggest that the cost of it should be repaid over the short period of 20 years? Why should not the repayment period be 30 or 50 years in view of the fact that the people of a future day will benefit as much from the work being done there as the people of this generation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would that be a question for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or another Minister?

Mr. Desmond

I suggest that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the importance of a longer repayment period.

Mr. Childers

The Post Office lost £800,000 with the system under Deputy Everett, which has not changed.

Mr. Desmond

Some Deputies may get heated in a discussion of this kind but I, on the contrary, am not going to become heated; I am not going to discuss any other Minister or anything that happened in the past. The past is past. but the Minister is here and we are entitled to draw attentionto the present and the future. Regarding the losses to which the Minister draws so much attention and some of which he proposes to get back by increased charges, some of those losses should not be given in that line at all. It is the Minister's conservative outlook in his political approach to his Department and the cost of it that governs the whole cost we are faced with now. He stated that we must be prepared to face these losses. Other Departments will be under discussion here and the time will come when we can put a case for reductions in some of them and then if there are losses in Posts and Telegraphs let them be met from those surpluses.

The Minister said there has been an improvement in the volume of parcel and letter mail. It is well to know that. We ought to know what amount was made by the increased charges on those services before. I know they have been grouped and that the Minister went to great pains to show the total increase and also the costs in wages and maintenance. It is like the point of the case in Britain—there must be a limit and if we go beyond it our services will not show a profit, as there is bound to be a decrease in the volume of traffic. The Minister showed the percentage increase or decrease in these charges as compared with 1923, but he did not give us the whole of the story.

The percentages he gave may look all right and we may think we are getting away with it lightly, but I should wish to know the volume of traffic and the percentage increases as compared with 1923 in the volume of letters, parcel post and telephones. As the Minister stated, in certain sections it does not cost a lot more to provide extra services where you have the staff to meet it. On that account I am not prepared to accept the Minister's percentages at the present time as against 1923, as the picture is not complete and we are not provided with data for the increased traffic during that period.

The Minister tells us that within the year there has been an increase of about 2,500,000 telephone calls. Thatshows that the telephone is taking its rightful place and superseding the old telegraph service, which served us well in its own time. We know that the telephone is far more suitable, but surely the Minister will not say that the vast majority of users have telephones just for pleasure. He says— and I do not blame him, as he wants to substantiate his own case—that on the average many people use the telephone only twice in the day. What about those using it more often? Do not a large percentage of those who have it use it solely for business purposes and not for pleasure? I considered when the last increase in charges for telephone calls was being made that it was totally unfair to increase the percentage for rental charges as well. The Minister's policy now seems to be in conformity with the policy of the E.S.B. on increases —to increase the rentals as well as increase the cost of usage itself.

The Minister struck an important fact when he mentioned—even though it was on his own side—the value of the £ as against its value in olden times. We have all been laying stress on that. The value of the £ to-day is a big problem to the person in the country who will be asked to meet these increased charges just the same as anyone else. We should all like to see this Department paying its way. Fundamentally, it is a service given to the nation, a service which cannot be done without. There are other Departments we could do without, but we cannot do without this one. Even if it were run at a loss, it is of such importance in the everyday life of the people that we must face that loss.

I would like to finish on a particular note. I think it is my duty to mention those telephone operators whom we have had to deal with on many occasions. I have already mentioned the service given by the Department and, as I notice that no one else has mentioned this up to now, I would like to pay a tribute, which is due and which should be paid, to the operators in this House. The telephone operators here have, I believe, one of the hardest jobs imaginable, in dealing with all the Deputies. It is only fair and just topay that tribute to them for their courtesy and for their wonderful work for us in this House.

Finally, in regard to telephone operators as a whole, it is also my duty briefly to pay a tribute to all the officials concerned. I had occasion to use the telephone service here for a long-distance call to Australia. The courtesy I received from the Department and from the officials was such that I would be unfair and unjust if I did not wish to have it recorded. Their courtesy and their co-operation has been something that I admire very much. If the same thing were noticeable and were offered in every Department of State, we would have made a great advance towards a better service in all Departments.

Mr. Cogan

While I must compliment the members of the Labour Party on their moderation and their constructive approach to this Estimate, some members of the Fine Gael Party have been so extravagant in their condemnation of the Minister and in their protests against the proposed changes in charges and so on, that the Minister will have some difficulty in replying to their criticism, as they have already, by their series of contradictions, completely replied to themselves. Deputy Flanagan's speech was an outstanding example of the insincerity, the hollowness, the sham and the humbug which characterise the outbursts of certain members of the Opposition.

If we leave out the abusive language with which Deputy Flanagan's speeches are frequently adorned the speech can be divided into two parts. One is a demand, a very vehement demand, for increased expenditure in every section of the Department—he wants more lines, more pillar boxes, more post offices, better and longer service, service even on a half-holiday, and, in addition, higher remuneration for all officials of the Department—and the other, a demand that there must be no increase whatever in the cost of these services to the community. It can be truly said that one half of Deputy Flanagan's speech cancels out the other and that is true of most of the speeches we have heard from theOpposition. We cannot have increased services without increased cost.

I notice in a morning paper a very strong criticism of the Minister for proposing to increase charges, and it might be no harm for the Minister and for others to remind that newspaper that, back in the days when the ordinary postage stamp cost 1d., that morning paper could be purchased for ½d. To-day, the same paper costs 2d., an increase of 300 per cent. on the original cost. The cost of the postage stamp has not increased to that extent. Nobody complains about paying 2d. for a morning paper; nobody complains about paying four times as much as he paid some years ago for the amenity of reading the daily news and the comments upon it. In the same way, when the charge for the postage of a letter was 1d., one could purchase a half pint of porter at the same price. I do not know what it costs now, but I am sure it is nine times as much. The same is almost true of every commodity we have to deal with and it is only right and proper that we should approach this matter in a realistic way.

I am in complete agreement with those who have said that the staffs of the Post Office are underpaid. No matter from what angle one views it or by what standard one examines the remuneration of Post Office staffs, one will find that it is inadequate in most cases. I think that a fair offer to the Minister and a fair proposition to put forward would be that the whole House should unanimously agree to an increase in Post Office charges, provided that it is accompanied by increased remuneration for the staffs. That is a fair and reasonable approach and one that should commend itself to the Labour Party and one which, if the main Opposition Party were reasonable, should commend itself to them also. It is easy to reason, or to pretend to reason, that you can make good a deficit in a Department or a service by increased efficiency, but if we examine this question carefully and honestly we will have to admit that there is very small scope for the elimination of waste in the Post Office.

The problems of the Post Office inthis State are in some way similar to those of the transport system. We are dealing with a sparsely populated nation with a small population scattered over a large area. Even in my own constituency, portions of which are thickly populated, there are parts where the postman has to travel ten miles to deliver one letter. In a situation like that it is difficult to make a service profitable, and we have to acknowledge that that difficulty is inherent in the distribution of population in this State. I have a very strong feeling, though I have no figures to prove it, that if the entire Post Office service was confined to the City of Dublin, it would be paying quite a reasonable profit——

Mr. Childers

It would.

Mr. Cogan

——but we cannot have that condition of affairs. We have to cater for the entire State and for every citizen, regardless of whether he is living in the heart of the Wicklow mountains or in the centre of the City of Dublin. Because we have to do that we have to meet losses over wide sections of the Department.

We cannot claim, either, that there are large numbers of people employed in the Post Office service who are underworked. Anyone who casually observes conditions in our post offices, both large and small, will realise that there is plenty of work for all the staffs and on the whole the assistants and workers in the Post Office service work as hard as those in any commercial undertaking, and perhaps a little harder. Commercial undertakings are run for profit and the directors make it their business to see that every worker is fully employed. Notwithstanding that, I do not think that the workers in any commercial undertaking work harder than those in the Post Office, and, therefore, we can see very little scope for cutting down of expenditure, though it ought to be the duty of the Minister to examine every aspect of the service with a view to seeing where economies can be effected.

No Deputy, so far, however, has suggested any section of the PostOffice in which any economies can be effected, and we are faced with the fact that, if the Department is to pay its way, there is no alternative open to the Minister but to reduce the service provided for the community or increase the cost. It will not be seriously suggested that we can reduce the services provided for the community, that we can cut down the number of deliveries of letters in any area or in any other way restrict services. It is very difficult to see any escape, therefore, from the proposition that there must be some increases in charge. That is recognised by anyone who has given the matter a moment's serious consideration.

The cost of everything that we purchase in the shops has increased very considerably, to a larger extent than the cost of the letter post has increased over the past 30 years. I have compared the cost of the morning paper to-day with the cost when the postage stamp was one penny as being one example of increased costs. Thirty years ago the morning paper was 1/2d.; you could post a letter for a 1d. To-day the postage stamp is 2½d. but you have to pay four times the price for your morning paper.

Let us be reasonable. Let us say to the staffs of the Post Office, whether they be postmen delivering letters in the Wicklow mountains or elsewhere, that we believe they are entitled to better remuneration than they have been receiving and that, in order to provide that better remuneration, we are all willing to pay a little more for postage stamps. Let us not be selfish, like Deputy Flanagan, and point to the additional impost that the increase in postage rates will place on the ordinary Deputy. Deputies ought to be fair-minded in this respect and realise that Post Office workers work very hard and are entitled to fair remuneration and are entitled to expect that we will attempt in some way to contribute to that higher remuneration.

If we were to follow the line of argument adopted by Deputy Flanagan we would be arguing that the workers in the Post Office ought to be starved in order that Deputy Flanagan and other people could have postagestamps at a cheap rate. That is the only logical conclusion to his suggestion. I do not think Deputies will follow that line or that the country will expect us to follow that line of argument.

I commented on the reasonable approach to this debate by members of the Labour Party but I must also comment on the complete absence from this debate of the former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He usually contributed to the debate on the Estimate. He usually led off the debate. It is significant that he is absent from the debate this year. It may be significant also that Fine Gael have selected their own shadow Minister to lead off in this debate. That may indicate a widening, perhaps, of the gulf between Fine Gael and Labour. We had a clash of views between Fine Gael and Labour in regard to the half-holiday for Post Office workers.

Mr. Hickey

That is a grand contribution to the debate.

Mr. Cogan

We had the suggestion put forward by Deputy Flanagan that there ought not to be a half-holiday in the post office.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is not so.

Mr. Cogan

Yes.

Mr. O. Flanagan

No. I did not object to the half-holiday at all. I said there should be somebody in the post office but they could have their half-holiday just the same.

Mr. Cogan

That is what I am saying.

Mr. O. Flanagan

No.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Flanagan suggested that the post office should not close down for a half-holiday. I do not think there is a reasonable case in support of that. Shops close for a half-day and nobody objects to that. We have come to recognise and to accept it. In the same way people will very quickly become accustomed to the closing of the local post office.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The ordinary housewife gives her domestic servanta half-holiday but she does not close down the whole house. The house remains open.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Flanagan is trying to equate the ordinary household with a business premises. The post office is a business premises. Grocery and drapery establishments and other business houses close for a half-holiday and people manage to do without them for the period of a half-day each week. It is only right that the post office should enjoy the same amenity. It is easy to suggest that the post office could remain open if additional staff were employed. We all know that the income of sub-post offices in small towns is very modest and the cost of employing additional staff in order to remain open on the half-holiday would be prohibitive. There is no substance in Deputy Flanagan's suggestion.

We must be reasonable and fair to everybody. Provided the post office in each town closes on the day of the week that is the recognised half-holiday in the town no serious inconvenience will be caused to anybody.

It was left to Deputy Dillon, of course, to introduce the other kind of note into this debate, the note of bitterness and rancour, and the accusations of political patronage and racketeering and all the other vices which he usually attributes to his opponents. Deputy Dillon referred at considerable length to the appointment of sub-postmasters. It is remarkable that, while by innuendo and suggestion he tried to convey the impression that there is patronage in the appointment of sub-postmasters, he did not get down to any specific charge. He is too wily and too old a politician to set down any clear-cut charge. He usually attempts to convey malicious suggestions in a vague and underhand way. He referred to an appointment in County Wexford, in Fethard-on-Sea, and suggested that the sub-post office was opened in a licensed premises. Yet, in the course of his speech he admitted that the two premises were completely separate.

He did not, of course, admit publiclywhat every Deputy who made inquiries into the matter knows, that the subpostmistress in that village is not the owner of a licensed premises and has no share whatever in the ownership of a licensed premises. The premises of which she is the occupier are completely separate and apart from any licensed premises. Deputy Dillon admitted that when he said that persons going into that post office to purchase stamps or to draw an old age pension would, on a wet day, have to bring goloshes and a mackintosh if they wished to visit the public-house because they would have to go out on the road again to enter the public-house.

A different situation prevailed during Deputy Dillon's régime when a new post office was opened in a public-house in Baltinglass. There you could purchase your stamps, draw your old age pension and purchase stout, beer or whiskey without going away from the post office counter. You could get all these commodities at the one counter. There was no structural barrier between the new post office and the licensed premises. They were part and parcel of the one premises. Further, the owner of the post office had no right or legal power to separate the newly established post office from the licensed premises. Therefore, in Baltinglass during the 11 days of the inter-Party post office a person would have to break the law if he wanted to make a telephone call on a Sunday morning or purchase a stamp because he would be entering licensed premises.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That is not so, and the Deputy knows well it is not.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Flanagan knows that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not know any such thing.

Mr. Cogan

These are the facts which resulted in that post office lasting for only 11 days. It is a remarkable thing that Deputy Dillon did not refer to that. He spoke of his glorious and illustrious colleague who laid a cable from Cork to Dublin and from Dublin to London, but he did not know anything about the cable fromMill Street to Cuckoo Lane in Baltinglass. That is a cable that will remain there as a lasting monument of political patronage, jobbery and inefficiency.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There was a cable laid down in Wicklow also.

Mr. Cogan

As I say, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is now, and I think was, prior to the Baltinglass incident, rigidly and, I might say, ruthlessly efficient. Sub-post offices are, if you like, small banking institutions. They have to hand out considerable sums of money and take money on trust, the small savings, perhaps, of poor people, and because of that they have to be rigid in their dealings in money matters. They have to be extremely careful in keeping their books and accounts in order to ensure that confidence is preserved in the Post Office as a savings bank or as a distributor of allowances and pensions to the poor sections of our people. Any Deputy often feels that the officials of the Department are unduly harsh in their dealings with sub-postmasters and postmistresses, that they are almost callous in their dealings with them. We have, of course, to remember that they have a duty to the public to perform and that duty is to preserve strict rectitude in the handling of public money and also the confidence of people in regard to such matters.

It was a rather extraordinary thing that, although Deputy Dillon spoke for a very long time on the subject of appointments to sub-post offices, he did not refer even in passing to one of the most outstanding incidents of the past year in regard to such appointments. That was the famous appointment at Ballinalee. Why did Deputy Dillon go down to Fethard-on-Sea to throw mud at some almost unknown sub-postmistress there, but make no reference to the great battle in Baltinglass where blood was spilled, where property was destroyed, and where an ex-Minister of State took a prominent part in leading the campaign? Why was the cloak of silence spread over that incident as far as Deputy Dillon and the rest of the Opposition wereconcerned? I hope the former Minister to whom I have referred and perhaps some of the other Ministers are sufficiently decent to be completely ashamed now of the whole incident and to realise that they made a very great mistake.

I think the Minister is to be complimented on the firm stand he took in that matter. It is very difficult for a Minister to take a firm stand in matters of this kind. Deputy Dillon spoke of the pull and patronage of a political Party, but I think the heaviest strain that can be put upon a Minister is when all political Parties and leaders of all political Parties, and particularly when local people who are prominent and respected, make representations to him on compassionate grounds to appoint some person who is not qualified to a position. It is very difficult to turn down these requests. It is to the credit of the Minister that he took a firm stand on that occasion and upheld the cause of strict rectitude and efficiency in his Department. There was a note of anger, resentment and bitterness running through Deputy Dillon's speech in regard to post office appointments.

Mr. Hickey

I wonder will we ever get away from personalities?

Mr. Cogan

We are not dealing with personalities but with a speech delivered in the course of the debate which occupied a considerable portion of the time of the House and which sought to convey across the floor of the House the implication that there is widespread patronage now in the Post Office. Why did Deputy Hickey not protest vigorously against that implication when it was made by a person on his left?

Mr. Hickey

I require a lot of patience to listen to you.

Mr. Cogan

Why did not the Deputy vigorously protest against the charges made by Deputy Dillon which were of a very serious nature? They imputed that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is riddled with graft, corruption and political patronage of every kind. It is time to root that type ofsmear campaign out of the debates in this House. Why do we want to charge our fellow countrymen with dishonesty, trickery and fraud? Why does one particular Deputy more than another try to impute these motives to his political opponents and why does Deputy Hickey always intervene——

Mr. Hickey

For mercy's sake leave me out of it.

Mr. Cogan

——to try to defend that particular mud-slinger? I did not bring Deputy Hickey into it. He interrupted when I was dealing with something that is unclean. I know the subject of Deputy Dillon is unclean and I think it would be better left out of the discussion but so long as he is elected he can bring his own filth and abuse in here and there is nothing we can do about it except repudiate it in the strongest possible way. I think that of all Departments, contrary to what Deputy Dillon said, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has a very clean record. Some of the members of Deputy Hickey's Party asknowledged that very graciously. They also acknowledged that right through the Department there is an imperative desire for higher and higher efficiency and for strict rectitude in dealing with the public and with public money.

I think that tradition ought to be preserved and it is bad for the preservation of that tradition that one very eloquent member of the House should be able to impute motives to the Minister and to the Department and convey to the House the idea that the Department is corrupt. It is not corrupt. Anyone who has any experience of dealing with questions that arise from day to day will acknowledge that the Department deals sometimes harshly and sometimes ruthlessly but always with efficiency and impartiality with matters concerning its staff and the making of appointments.

The suggestion that the Minister should come in here and brazenly uphold political patronage is one that should not be advanced. Deputy Dillon suggested that he would admire that action on the part of the Minister,that he would admire honest jobbery and the clear-cut declaration that the Minister stood for political patronage right through his Department. Deputy Dillon said he would admire that but that he was against the type of selection board set up under the inter-Party Government, that he thought that should be swept away and that we should openly declare and proclaim political patronage and jobbery in the Department.

If the battle of Baltinglass achieved nothing else, it did succeed in achieving the setting up of an impartial board to make appointments to sub-post offices throughout the country. That board must remain and its recommendations must be honoured in all cases except in very exceptional circumstances. Where a case can be made on compassionate grounds for a particular appointment, where it can be openly explained here and, when explained, universally approved, a departure can be made from the normal procedure. Such a case would be one in a thousand. I hope the board will remain as a permanent monument to a successful fight on the part of the priests and the people of Baltinglass against political patronage and jobbery. I hope it will discharge its functions with impartiality and common sense and that its recommendations will always be honoured and accepted.

I commend the Minister's work since he took office. He has made a reasonable attempt to increase the efficiency of his Department and he has shown imagination in the measures he has adopted. Most of the suggestions made to the Minister on matters of detail are suggestions which, if implemented, would lead to increased services, increased expenditure and a further increase in the losses sustained in running the Department. I find it exceedingly difficult to suggest where economies might be effected without making the service less comprehensive and less beneficial to the community as a whole. In rural areas one could cut down expenditure by cutting down services, but no Deputy, not even a city Deputy, will advocate that.

I have often wondered if moremechanisation in the rural areas by the provision of motor cycles for postmen, and so on, would result in improved services at less expense. I am sure, that has been carefully considered, and I do not believe very large economies could be effected, remembering how lowly-paid the rural postmen are. These men do a tremendous amount of work on bicycles and sometimes on foot for very small remuneration. The wages of many of them are lower than those paid to agricultural workers. Some Deputies condemned the farmer because of the low wages he pays to his workmen. The fact is that a large number of Post Office workers are paid much lower than the agricultural labourers are.

It is difficult to see how economies can be effected. If one substitutes motor cycles less auxiliary postmen will be employed; but, remembering the rates of remuneration, I doubt very much if the reduction in numbers employed would give any considerable increase to those retained in employment.

It is foolish for people like Deputy O. Flanagan to condemn reorganisation of Post Office areas. One must aim at a higher standard of efficiency. The picture of the Land Commission inspector travelling 30 or 40 miles out of his way looking for a particular village would seem to indicate that Land Commission inspectors do not use road maps. I do not think that that is the position. I think Deputy Flanagan was either drawing on his imagination or referring to a unique type of inspector. My suggestion that the remuneration of our lower-paid workers in the Post Office service will be increased and that, as a corollary to that increase, all Parties in this House will unanimously agree to an increase in Post Office charges is a reasonable suggestion and one which, I think, commends itself to every fair-minded person.

Mr. Allen

I think it will be agreed that when a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs presents his Estimate to this House—no matter to what Party or Government he may belong—he isamongst the most popular of Ministers because he is asking for money for a social service which brings more joy and satisfaction to the community than any other service administered by the State.

The Minister announced that it is necessary to increase the charges for certain services in the near future and I believe that the country will accept that as being necessary and justified. As everybody knows, the services given by the Post Office are services which the community find necessary and which they could not do without. I have not a shadow of doubt that whatever increased charges the Minister proposes will be accepted in that spirit by the community. It was inevitable, owing to the extension of the telephone to all the rural post offices, that the cost of the telephone service should increase and I cannot see any other way out of the difficulty than that which the Minister has taken. Indeed, it has been a surprise to many people that, in view of the amount of capital expenditure over the past few years, the Post Office was able to carry on for so long without increasing the charge for that service. A huge amount of capital expenditure has taken place.

In 1946—just at the end of the emergency—the Fianna Fáil Government decided to extend the telephone to all the rural areas. That was a big, an important and a far-reaching decision which I think had the unanimous support of the community. The only way out of our difficulty is that the people who avail of these services must pay for them. The suggestion by the Opposition that services can be increased in the Post Office without anyone having to pay for these increased services is too ridiculous even to consider. I think that every Opposition speaker in this debate condemned the Minister, in the first instance, and the Government for proposing to increase the charges and, almost in the same breath, these very speakers went on to advocate further services which would cost the taxpayers of this country hundreds of thousands of pounds more. No Deputy who spoke from the Opposition Benches is satisfied with the present services: theywant extended services and, at the same time, they want higher wages and salaries for everyone, better sub-post office buildings throughout the country, telephone kiosks and every other conceivable way of spending more money on the Post Office service. These extended services have been advocated by the self-same Deputies who condemned the Minister for proposing to increase costs. As the Minister pointed out, these increased costs came about mainly as a result of the higher price of materials, higher wages and all the other incidentals of which we are all only too well aware.

There are some directions in which I suggest improvements might be made in relation to increased services. I come from a tourist area in the Gorey-Courtown district. It has no circuit of its own. All telephone calls and telegrams must first go through the Enniscorthy service. It seems foolish that Dublin should first ring Enniscorthy and that the call should then come back some 20 miles towards Dublin again. There are sufficient subscribers in the district to qualify us for an independent circuit. Each year, especially during the tourist season, I receive many complaints about the pressure on that post office and about the delays in getting trunk calls through. All these difficulties could be obviated if Gorey post office had a circuit of its own. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to that matter. He mentioned a number of increased circuits in different areas, and I hope he will count this circuit amongst the number.

My main reason for speaking on this Estimate is that a number of Opposition Deputies referred to an appointment made in my constituency in a village on the south coast of Wexford named Fethard-on-Sea. Deputy Dillon was most loquacious: he generally is. He talked about corruption, intrigue and so on: he usually does. We are so accustomed to him now in this House that we do not mind him. The great crime which the present postmistress committed, in Deputy Dillon's eyes, is that she is the daughter of a good Old I.R.A. small farmer in the district. That is the greatest crime that thisnew postmistress could have committed in Deputy Dillon's eyes. That is the only reason why she has been attacked in this House. The post office in Fethard-on-Sea is not in a public-house or in a premises that was ever portion of a public-house. It may be next door to a public-house, but the premises themselves were never portion of a licensed premises. The appointment of this lady was most popular. If a census were taken of the views of the people in that sub-post district, I have no doubt but that the lady in question would receive a 100 per cent. recommendation. I knew nothing at all about this matter until I inquired. The first I heard of it was as a result of a question which was asked in this House. Deputy O'Leary said that there would be another Ballinalee down there: I do not know what he meant by that. There was no ex-Minister in that district to lead a riot there as there was in Ballinalee.

It is extraordinary, as Deputy Cogan mentioned, that Deputy Dillon was so silent about the biggest incident that took place since I became a member of this House 25 years ago. Nothing happened before in the history of the Post Office like what happened in Ballinalee. Baltinglass fades into insignificance compared with what happened in Ballinalee. The country was mobilised and lethal weapons were put into the hands of some of the people to enable them to tear down public property in a peaceful country village. I believe that Fine Gael and some of its leaders will not come too well out of this. If Deputy Dillon had wanted, he could have talked of what took place at Ballinalee. It is not very far from the place where he usually resides. I am sure he knows quite a lot about it. It was a shameful episode in the history of this country and there is no doubt but that the Fine Gael leaders were absolutely responsible for it.

The post office appointment made by the Minister in Fethard-on-Sea was one that can be stood over and has no political significance whatever. The people were surprised in that district when they heard all the hubbub that was raised merely for the purpose of covering up for the Ballinalee incident. I hope that in future the Minister forPosts and Telegraphs will be allowed to do his duty in the efficient manner in which he has been doing it. There is no doubt that the telephone services and particularly the trunk call services, have improved out of all recognition. I think it would be true to say that over many years more swear words were used in connection with the telephone, due to long delays waiting for calls, and so forth, than in connection with any other service in the State.

There has, indeed, been great improvement in that respect. Calls can be made now without great delay. There is, of course, certain delay still on trunk calls but nothing like there was previously. It is now possible to get a trunk call within reasonable time. I would like to say a word of praise for the Post Office officials; they will tell you what the delay will be and almost to the minute you will get your trunk call when that period of delay has passed. Formerly you never knew; you might get it in an hour, an hour-and-a-half or you might not get it at all. That has all changed thanks to the Minister and to the efficient manner in which he and his officials have administered the Post Office services since he took over that Department.

I have no doubt that within a short period any of the difficulties that still exist in the Post Office services will be overcome. The Minister cannot do that unless the House is prepared to give him the wherewithal to do it. These things cost money. Every service in the Post Office, whether for the rural areas or anywhere else, costs a great deal of money.

In regard to telephones in rural areas, to my mind subscribers are called upon to deposit too large a fee. I want to inquire from the Minister if there is any way of getting over that. If a person applies for a telephone connection in a rural area, there is no reason why this considerable deposit should have to be put down by the subscriber. People living in rural areas should not be called upon to bear this burden. All citizens are alike. They all pay taxes according to their means and they are all entitled to equal service. If you are lucky enough tolive in a town or village where there is already a post office and where there is only a short distance from the applicant's house to the post office, there is no grading charge whatever, but if you live in a rural area there is a considerable deposit to be put down by the person applying for the telephone.

If there is any way of getting over that without serious loss of revenue, the Minister would be doing great service to the rural community. They need it very badly. We are not telephone-minded in this country but we will grow into that if the services can be provided at a cost that people can afford to pay. Many persons would take in the telephone in the rural areas but for the amount of the deposit they must lay down before they are given that telephone at the present day. I again assure the Minister that the work he is doing is appreciated by the community.

Mr. Hickey

It is a most disgusting and unworthy practice for anybody to waste the time of the House and the time of the Minister by using this or any other Estimate for the purpose of attacking political opponents. I hope that both you and the Ceann Comhairle will make short shrift of anybody who practices that in the future.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hickey

Hear, hear! But I know where they are coming from.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a reflection on the Chair. The Chair deals invariably with disorderly interruptions in this House.

Mr. Hickey

It was wrong to waste the time of the House in that fashion. I would be very sorry to cause any reflection on the Chair——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies are entitled to draw comparisons.

Mr. Hickey

And waste the time of the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Chair and not for Deputy Hickey.

Mr. Hickey

I will be very brief and I do not intend to complain about anyof the extra charges the Minister has imposed. However, I did fail to find any reference in his speech to money in the Post Office Savings Bank and what good use could be made of it in this country. I happened to be a member of a deputation last night seeking money for the building of houses in Cork. We are charging young men who are making a big sacrifice in building their own houses 5½ per cent. on loans of anything up to £1,000.

Mr. Childers

I am not responsible for the investment of the Post Office Savings Bank funds.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs says he is not responsible for that.

Mr. Childers

I have no information to deal with it either.

Mr. Hickey

I take it he is responsible for the money.

Mr. Childers

I am not responsible for its investment. I would be glad to deal with the matter if I were. I have absolutely no information at my disposal and it is not fair for the Deputy to raise it now that he has been informed that it is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Hickey

We paid £89,000 last year for interest on money used in the development of our telephone services. I find that we have £35,972,430 of the people's savings in the Post Office. Of that amount, £5,954,000 is in British war stocks at 2½ per cent.; we have £12,421,000 in England at 3 per cent.; there is £13,147,000 invested at 3½ per cent. and £4,450,000 at 4 per cent. In 1939, we had £2,198,000 in British war stocks at 3½ per cent. and in 1946, seven years after, we had the big sum of £5,682,000 in British war stocks at 2½ per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has pointed out that he is not responsible for investing that money. Since the Minister has pointed that out to the Deputy, there is no need to discuss the matter any further.

Mr. Hickey

Is the transferring of these bonds to wherever they are sent after being in the Post Office not the Minister's responsibility?

Mr. Childers

My Department is purely a collecting agency and an advertising agency for the Minister for Finance. I have absolutely no function in the matter and it would confuse the debate without description if it were allowed to be introduced under that Department. It is a semi-commercial service acting as an agency on behalf of the Government for the collection of savings. It would be impossible to discuss the matter on this Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the Minister has no function in the matter, the Deputy cannot pursue it any further.

Mr. Hickey

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I shall probably have an opportunity of referring to it on some other occasion. It is a very pleasant thing to hear all the praise given by various Deputies to Post Office staffs. I can add my tribute to that but I would say, and I want to emphasise the point, that if we want integrity and honesty in our public services—and I am referring particularly to the lowerpaid men in the postal service—we should make sure that these people are provided with a standard of living equal to the responsibilities they shoulder. I often stand at a post office counter and see the many transactions that take place in the sale of Savings Certificates, money orders and postal orders, and I often think of the many important parcels and letters which it is the duty of the postmen to deliver.

One cannot help thinking of the temptation placed in the way of men who have these responsibilities when one considers the remuneration for their very responsible work. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister to exercise his influence with a view to seeing that these people are properly paid. When I make that statement I have in mind another big organisation in the country where from time to time in the past I had to deal with certain irregularities, due to the fact that menwho were badly paid were handling large sums of money from morning to night. I want to make the statement for the Minister's guidance that when the wages of these men were brought up to a reasonable standard after a very short period the irregularities ceased. That, as I say, was due to the fact that their wages were brought up to a decent standard and that they were not left open to the same temptation as formerely. Post-Office staffs are doing very important and responsible work, and it is not fair to expect these people to eke out an existence on wages that are not worthy of this country. I shall not waste the time of the House further, but I hope that the Minister will take note of what I have said.

Mr. D. Costello

It must, indeed, have come as a great shock to the community to hear the Minister announce yesterday that he proposed important increases in the postal, telegraph and telephone services under his control. It must have come as a shock to them because of the steady decline in the deficits shown in the last few years in the running of the Post Office, and in view of the fact that the total Estimate for the Department this year is down by the sum of £350,000. The Minister's figures show that the deficit in the year 1951-52 was £840,000 and that that deficit was reduced in the year 1952-53 to £749,000, a reduction of nearly £100,000. In view of the fact that the Minister said here yesterday that the estimated deficit in the coming year would be down by another £50,000, it must have come, as I said, as more than an unpleasant surprise to the community, that in spite of the declining deficits for the past few years and perhaps a further decline in the coming year, still the public will be asked to meet increased charges in respect of telephone, telegraph and postal services.

I think it is more than naïve on the part of the Minister to object to the Opposition calling these increased impositions, taxation. There is no term for the increased charges that are now being imposed on the community other than indirect taxation. The Government, since they came into office nearly two years ago, embarked on this policy which has resulted in the greatly increasedtaxation from which the country has been suffering since the last Budget. Side by side with the increased tax revenue which the Government is taking out of the pockets of the community there has been a large increase in non-tax revenue. At every opportunity the Government has sought to take more and more money out of the pockets of the community. We had, for instance, the Minister for Local Government introducing legislation to increase motor taxation which, of course, was another form of indirect taxation. The Minister himself increased the fees for wireless licences, another aspect of indirect taxation. Then yesterday the Dáil and the public were informed that no less a sum than £700,000 is to be collected by his Department in increased charges. It seems to me obvious that there can be no other name for these impositions than indirect taxation even if in the Revenue Accounts they might appear as non-tax revenue.

I think the House should regard the Department in this light. This is a Supply Service which has to be covered from the current revenue of the State, and that current revenue is made up of two parts—tax revenue and non-tax revenue. If the Minister for Finance can come in here next week and relieve taxation to the extent of £700,000 and his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the week after, brings in this proposed legislation increasing non-tax revenue by £700,000, it must be clear that the Revenue Accounts will be balanced by a reduction on the one part and an increase on the other. These increased charges are going to be an ease to the Minister for Finance when he comes in here presenting his Budget next week. I must object in the strongest possible terms to the attempt to try to gloss over the fact that this is nothing but a form of indirect taxation to the ease of the Exchequer. What is the justification for it? It is quite clear on the Minister's own figures that the deficits for his Department have been going down steadily.

Mr. Childers

That is not so. The Deputy is reading the figures wrongly and is reading my speech wrongly.

Mr. D. Costello

I must apologise, but I thought I was quoting the Minister's figures correctly.

Mr. Childers

I pointed out that the deficit for the year 1951-52 was £840,000 and that the estimated figure for last year was £749,000, but I said that the estimated deficit would be much higher were it not that we had decided to use for current requirements some of the emergency reserve stocks. The Deputy is usually so accurate with his figures that I thought it well to make that correction.

Mr. D. Costello

Last year's deficit was £749,000 and the deficit for the coming year is estimated at £700,000 showing a further reduction. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the deficits are being gradually reduced and the total expenditure of the Department is down by £350,000. Still we are being asked to increase the revenue of the Department by no less than £700,000. It does seem to me wrong to endeavour to gloss over the operation that the Minister is now proposing to bring about by blaming increased costs.

I think the main criticism of the Government's financial policy is its misunderstanding of the effects that Government financial policy can bring about in the country. There is, for example, a direct link up between the increase in rates, which the Minister complains of as one of the reasons for the deficit this year, and the budgetary policy last year. There is a direct link up between the increase in interest charges, which is one of the reasons for the deficit this year, and the Government's decision to borrow at 5 per cent. last year. The whole financial policy of the Government cannot be divided up into compartments as the Minister and his supporters would appear to like it to be. We cannot be put off pointing out that the increased charges which the Minister alleges are going to bring about a deficit this year are the result of the Government's financial policy since they came into office.

Mr. Childers

What took place before that? The Deputy is most unfortunatein trying to drag the Post Office into politics.

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Minister contain himself?

Mr. Childers

Deputy Everett imposed a charge of nearly £1,000,000 and did not call it taxes.

Mr. D. Costello

I think it is very wrong of the Minister to suggest that I am trying to drag the Post Office into politics. I am dragging the Minister and his Government into politics and that is what we are here for. I am entitled to speak and voice what I feel to be the feeling of everybody in the State who read the newspapers this morning in which there was an account of these increased charges which are being brought about in the Minister's Department. I am not blaming any of the officials of his Department. I am not dragging the Post Office into politics. I am complaining and I think I am voicing the complaints of the public in regard to these increased impositions which the Minister is now going to bring about.

The position is that we have one of the few estimates before us which show a decrease. We are debating in this House an Estimate which is down by £350,000 on last year and on that Estimate the Minister comes in and informs us that by reason of these increased charges the revenue of the Post-Office will have to be increased. The point I am making is that the increased expenditure pointed out by the Minister is part and parcel of the financial policy of the Government of which he is a member and is a direct result of the financial policy enshrined in the Budget last year. The increased costs which have taken place throughout the whole country, the increased rates which have hit his Department like the ordinary household and the businessman, the increased interest rates which have hit his Department and the unfortunate people trying to borrow under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act have all stemmed from Government financial policy. I am entitled to bring these matters up and I am entitled to point out that the deficitwhich he now alleges to exist should not be as large or there at all.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order. In the interests of the Post Office and its tradition, the Deputy is not entitled to misrepresent figures. There was a substantial deficit of £840,000 for the financial year 1951-52, during which there were no fundamental budgetary changes. It is not fair to drag the Estimate of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs into the arena of politics in this way.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. That is an argument.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister should learn to keep his temper.

Mr. D. Costello

I do not know what point the Minister is trying to make.

Mr. Sweetman

He is trying to put you off.

Mr. D. Costello

He is entitled to try that. We are debating an Estimate for public services. Part of the Estimate deals with expenditure in relation to the Post Office. The Minister quoted figures to demonstrate the increased charges in his Department. I am entitled to comment on these increased charges and I am entitled to point out, without interruption from the Minister, how I regard these charges came about. I do not think I need put this matter any further. I am sure we will have an opportunity of dealing with it subsequently. I do want to say to the Minister, however, that it is not a question of bringing the Post Office into politics, as the Minister said, but a question of the right of the Opposition to challenge increased costs to the community when they do not believe they should be imposed in the manner in which it is being done. We are entitled also to comment on the expenditure which the Minister is proposing to bring about in the current year and to point out to the Minister the manner in which we believe that expenditure has been increased as a result of the budgetary policy of the Government of which he is a member.

In his statement yesterday the Minister referred somewhat briefly to thesavings operation of his Department. The Government and the Minister have, I think, paid lip service to the need for increased savings in this community. Our policy in that regard has been made clear time and time again. The importance of savings in this community has been stressed in the House and elsewhere by the Party of which I am a member. I think it is quite obvious that the large-scale capital programme which we desire and which the present Government apparently desires also can only be financed either out of current savings or disinvestment abroad. If the capital expenditure is to be increased savings or disinvestment abroad must be increased. If the Government, which has shown in the past so much concern for our sterling assets, desired to save their disinvestment and did not wish to repatriate them they have the alternative of either reducing State capital expenditure or increasing savings within the community.

Our policy is well known. We believe in a high rate of State capital investment in the community. We believe that it should be financed as far as possible from current savings within the community. We believe it should not be held up because of lack of savings within the community, and that disinvestment abroad should take place before capital formations at home could be brought about. The equation is a simple one.

Mr. Childers

The Post Office is purely a collection agency and advertising agency for the Minister for Finance, and this other matter should not be introduced.

Mr. D. Costello

I am in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

So far as the Post Office is concerned the question of savings is quite relevant, but disinvestment abroad and the equating of one against the other does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. D. Costello

I take it that Government savings arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. D. Costello

I mean savings in respect of the Post Office.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. D. Costello

That is what I am endeavouring to deal with. I was endeavouring to deal with it by pointing out the importance of developing the savings branch of the Minister's Department. I have endeavoured to show the reason why it was so important, because I believe that, in order to maintain the large-scale capital investment which we require, we would need to have more savings in the community. If that does not arise on the Estimate I shall pass from it now.

I think I would be entitled to point out the means by which we, in the Opposition, believe that savings, which are under the control of the Minister, could be increased. Our policy has been to increase and encourage thrift in the community and savings by means of the Post Office Savings Bank and the issue of Savings Certificates. We have suggested that could be done best by setting up a central savings office which would undertake the task of bringing about an increase in savings through the agencies which are at the control of the Minister. We have advocated also that such organisations as trade unions, Macra na Feirme and Muintir na Tíre should be brought in to help in the savings drive. We have also suggested that savings could be increased by appropriate tax reliefs over a period of, say, six years in respect of new savings, and that there should be a greater measure of tax relief on savings.

An Ceann Comhairle

That, surely, is outside the control of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. D. Costello

May I put it this way, that I wish he would follow it up? I think I am entitled to point out what we would regard as the policy which should be pursued.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that would be a matter for the Minister for Finance rather than the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. D. Costello

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs used to take upon himself a very light task in regard to an important aspect of savings. However, if the Chair regards that as being outside the scope of the Estimate. I will not pursue it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to deal with all matters for which the Minister has responsibility. In the opinion of the Chair, the policy in regard to savings is a matter for the Minister for Finance rather than for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. D. Costello

The Minister, in his opening statement yesterday, did refer to the steps which were being taken by his Department to increase savings.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is propaganda.

Mr. D. Costello

I think I am entitled to point out other steps, but I do not wish to press it any further. Our policy is well known. If the Minister would take it over and would increase the savings drive we would be only too glad. The position is that he has an extremely able person in charge of the Savings Branch of his Department. It is a question now of organising the savings drive in such a way as to bring in more savings through means of the agencies which are at his control. We have pointed out the ways in which that could be done. If the Minister does not agree with them, I would be glad to hear his criticism and what other suggestions he may have to make as to the means by which savings can be increased.

There is nothing further I wish to say on this Estimate. I think that our position, in regard to the increased impositions which the Minister announced yesterday, has been made abundantly clear. I think we are right in regarding them as merely another form of indirect taxation, another aspect of the increased tax policy which has been part and parcel of the financial policy of the Government since it came into power two years ago.

Mr. McMenamin

The increases announced by the Minister yesterdaygave me the greatest shock that I have got for some time. For some years, I have been indicating to this Department that its policy should be to extend its operations so as to increase its revenue, and thereby reduce its overheads. Now, we are told that there was no option left to the Government but to increase these charges. I profoundly differ from that policy. Surely the Minister and the Government must have reflected on what has taken place within the last 12 months with regard to the general condition of things here and on the effects of the Government's policy.

The Minister has indicated by the figures which he gave that the Department is losing money. Does anyone believe that these new taxes are going to better that position? Is it not quite clear that there has been a complete recession in trade and a determination on the part of the public who are being fleeced in one way or another, that they are going to resist that? In face of that, the Minister proposes to extract another £700,000 from a public which has made up its mind that it is not going to spend any more because of the policy pursued in the last Budget. The members of the public have stuck their toes in the ground in the case of every major tax which the Government have imposed. The result is that there has been a great falling off in revenue.

I deplore this tax. I deplore it on behalf of the Department. I look on it as a disaster so far as the Department is concerned. I was hoping that, gradually, we would get this Department so organised and extended that its revenue would be increased and its overheads reduced. This thing of spending time talking about the post office in Ballinalee, and things like that, is mere eyewash. The real kernel of this whole thing is involved in this additional taxation. This is the second heavy measure of taxation which has been imposed within a couple of years. This is coming now at a time when there is a recession in business all over the country. The Minister wants to reduce his losses by imposing additional taxation, in a year when the public have made up their mind to resist that. I do not know how theseproposals can be justified. I am as certain as I stand here that the imposition of this tax will be a failure. I am convinced that what I say will be vindicated 12 months hence. This is an attempt to extract more money from the people. The Minister may object to calling it taxation. I wonder what he would call it?

Mr. Childers

It is not taxation.

Mr. McMenamin

No. It is a present to the public. Each person who owns a telephone is going to get a cheque by way of a present, and so is every businessman on every letter he writes. This is being done at a time when there is a marked, an insidious, regression in every aspect of business. It is hard to suggest a remedy without being versed in the details of the work of the Department.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Everett agreed to an increase of nearly £1,000,000 and he did not call it taxes.

Mr. McMenamin

There is no escape from the Minister. This is a capital blunder, and I regret it. This is one service which I hoped would be increased, thereby bringing increased revenue which would reduce the overhead charges and then the cost of the service could be reduced.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should have asked Deputy Everett to do that.

Mr. McMenamin

All right. The Minister has tried his hand and we will see which of us will be vindicated. I have no doubt in the world that this is a serious blunder which will handicap the development and extension of the telephone system, whereby we could ultimately come to the point where we could abolish the telegraph system. I would suggest that all messages be sent by telephone and then sent out from the post offices. Then we could abolish the telegraph system, which is dead—not to-day but years ago. The moment the telephone came along, there was no hope for a telegraph system, none whatever, and it was only a question as to when it would die. Would the Minister not take his courage in his hands and putan end to that slow death and not have this thing a drag on the Department? He should co-ordinate the whole thing, extend the telephone system to every post office in Ireland and let all messages go through that, as telegraph messages have to go.

Mr. Childers

Stop 3,500,000 telegrams? That would be difficult.

Mr. McMenamin

Yes. Could you not do it the other way? Cannot messages be sent by telephone to the local post offices and then be sent out? The Minister is running the two systems alongside each other.

Mr. Childers

All over the country they are sent by telephone.

Mr. McMenamin

It is like the transport company running a railway, and on the road 20 yards away running a bus service.

Mr. Childers

What the Deputy is talking about has already been completed in nearly half the country.

Mr. McMenamin

I motored from Donegal on Wednesday and there was a train going to Sligo, while 20 yards away there was a bus going to Sligo. Surely there is nothing but bankruptcy facing that type of business? Is this not a business matter, which is as clear as noonday? There is no hope on earth for any organisation running that kind of system, letting the cost of the telegraph service go in conjunction with the telephone system which has completely superseded it. Why run the two together? Why not reorganise that, putting the telephone into every post office and sending all messages by telephone and sending them out then from the post office by messenger, who must go out, anyway? Why run the telegraph office and have the telephone system there at the same time? From a business point of view, there is no faith in the telegraph service and no hope for it, nothing but failure. What are the losses on it at present? It may take a bit of drive and organisation to do what I suggest, but it is a very simple matter. What would animportant business concern do in such a case?

Mr. Childers

This change-over has been going on for years. The Deputy did not listen to my speech.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister will have an opportunity to reply. What I am saying is absolutely honest and bona fideand it is not in a carping spirit that I address him. I look upon this as a disaster for the country and a disaster for the Department. The Minister is not seeking the way to success and he is not going to succeed.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Did the Minister not tell the Deputy that what he is advocating is already done in half the country, and the balance of the sub-post offices will have the telephone in another year?

Mr. McMenamin

I am going to be lectured in the organisation of a commercial Department by a man who knows nothing about it.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I learned from the Minister yesterday what apparently the Deputy has failed to learn.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Parliamentary Secretary had been in in time, he would have heard Deputy McMenamin speak about something entirely different.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McMenamin is being interrupted from all sides of the House—by Deputy Sweetman as well as by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. McMenamin

No interruption will prevent me from saying my say. The Parliamentary Secretary should not be disturbed in the least. Never was anything said more bona fideand more honestly. I say in no carping spirit what I am going to say. It may be tough, it may be hard, but it is true. I know that truth is not always pleasant. Anything I am saying is said with the desire to be helpful. It may be nasty to listen to the truth. Is not this a deliberative Assembly where mind should play upon mind and from the result of the minds operating on each other we should produce the bestfor the country? What we have here to-day is mere childishness.

I suggest that the country has got no more bitter shock for years than it got this morning, particularly the commercial life which has endured so much in the last 12 months. Men who have spent their lives building up a business, making it a success and doing well, are left with not enough income to pay the wages of their staffs. In the face of that, we are going to extract more money out of the people who should be patrons of these shops. Are you going to get it? Does anyone suggest you are going to get it? There is not a million to one chance of succeeding. Let us be quite blunt and quite hard about it. There is no escape for it. There never was a more wrong road taken than this one. If business were taking a turn for the better, there might be some excuse, but I find no evidence of that. I am in the country every week and I know what is goingon in both country and city. Business people tell me there is no evidence of an upward curve in business. I do not know what is the cause of it.

I suppose I would be blamed for introducing politics into this debate, but I must say that apparently the people of this country have stuck their toes into the ground and will not do anything until this Government goes out of office. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I suspect it is. While this Government is in office, they are giving the people a perfect dose of it; they are bringing disaster on the nation and I have no sympathy for them and anything they get is far too good for them. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th May, 1953.