Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Oct 1953

Vol. 142 No. 6

Telegraph Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Childers)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. As I mentioned when submitting the Estimates for my Department in April last, certain increases in the rates of charge for inland telegrams are inevitable, but require new legislation. The reason is that inland telegraph rates are subject to certain statutory limits last fixed in 1915 for Press telegrams and in 1928 for ordinary inland telegrams.

The Telegraph Act of 1915 prescribed inter aliathat the rates for Press telegrams should not exceed 1/- per 60 words, day rate, and 1/- per 80 words, night rate, and that the charge for each additional copy of the same telegram transmitted to another address should not exceed 3d. The Telegraph Act of 1928 provided that the rates for ordinary telegrams within the State should not exceed 1/6 for the first 12 words, plus 1d. per extra word, and that an additional 6d. might be charged for telegrams handed in on Christmas Day, Good Friday or Sunday.

At the moment, the Press rates mentioned in the 1915 Act are in operation, but the ordinary inland rates are less than the maximum rates prescribed by the 1928 statute, being 1/- for nine words, plus 1d. for each additional word. These latter rates were fixed in 1937. I need hardly say that both the existing rates and the maximum rates I have mentioned are altogether out of line with current costs.

It is fairly well known that the telegraph service has been a losing one for many years, but by way of background to this Bill I propose to refer again to some of the principal features. The net deficit in 1939-40 was £141,000; in 1949-50 it was £283,000; in 1951-52 it was £403,000; and for the current financial year the loss is estimated at £430,000 on the basis of existing charges.

This difficult position has been created by a number of factors operating together over a number of years past. Firstly, there has been a progressive increase in operating and maintenance costs—they have approximately doubled since 1944-45 and more than trebled since the current inland rates were fixed in 1937. Secondly, there is the downward trend of telegraph traffic. It was stimulated by war conditions but it has been declining since. The extension and improvement of the telephone service has no doubt contributed to this. Operating, maintenance and overhead costs are fairly rigid, in the sense that they cannot readily be adjusted to declining traffic. Hence these swollen losses.

We are not, of course, by any meansunique in having a losing telegraph service. Practically every country in the world has had the same problem, but our difficulties are accentuated by having a sparse and scattered rural population. In Great Britain, with its far denser population, the loss per telegram is of the same order as here.

My Department is taking all practicable steps to try to reduce expenditure on the telegraph service—in particular, by abolition of morse working as soon as possible, by provision of teleprinters at the larger centres, by greater use of the telephone for voicing telegrams and generally by closer integration with the telephone service. It would, however, be idle to hope that we could reduce a loss of £401,000 very substantially or very quickly in this way.

On the revenue side, charges have not been adjusted at all to help to meet the increased costs. The present Press rates have been in operation since 1920: the present ordinary inland rates have been in operation since 1937, when they were reduced below rates fixed in 1928. I would be surprised to hear of any other service which has not increased its rates during this period. I shall not labour the point that increases in telegraph rates are warranted. Clearly, increases are fully justified either by reference to the losses on the service, the change in the value of money, or any other standard.

The purpose and scope of the Bill has been explained in the White Paper which has already been circulated to Deputies. Briefly, it proposes to repeal the statutory limits on inland telegraph rates and Press telegraph rates contained in Section 1 of the Telegraph Act, 1928, and Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, as amended by Section 1 of the Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1915, and so enable these rates to be adjusted from time to time in the light of the costs and general finances of the service. The telegraph service has for years been heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and/or by the users of the other services and while it will probably be necessary to continue to do so to some extent there is no goodreason why the users of the telegraph service should not pay telegraph rates which bear some relationship to the vastly increased costs.

At one time statutory limits similar to those which the present Bill is designed to remove applied to a number of other Post Office charges but they have been removed from time to time, the remaining limits on the postal side being repealed in the Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1951, which was prepared by the last Government. There is no good reason why telegraph charges should be in an exceptional position and it is, therefore, proposed to bring them into line with other Post Office charges by repealing the limits and with other charges, such as E.S.B. charges, passport fees, etc., thus obviating the necessity for further amending legislation of this kind. Of course, the statutory regulations providing for changes in telegraph rates, like similar regulations for postal or telephone charges, will have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, so that the control of the Oireachtas in this matter will not in any real sense be impaired.

A provisional announcement was made earlier this year indicating certain increases in rates whose effect would be to reduce the deficit of £430,000 by 14 per cent. in a full financial year. Circumstances have delayed the passage of this Bill. I have decided that it would be inadvisable to make any decision on rates until I have received the report of the expert committee now examining telegraph administration——

Notice taken that 20 members were not present; House counted and, 20 members being present,

Mr. Childers

——and until I have full knowledge of what economies, if any, can be made beyond those arising from teleprinter and telephone handling of telegrams. The report will enable me to make a more considered decision as to whether under existing conditions the taxpayer or the postal and telephone users should be asked to bear a loss of approximately thevalue of each internal telegram sent, and to what extent. So, for the present, there will be no increase in rates. An announcement will be made as soon as possible, as the committee's work is fairly far advanced. As I have already said, the proposed increased charges will be subject to parliamentary control by way of special resolution.

Mr. Rooney

The Minister has come into the House this evening to indicate that he proposes to throw overboard the existing scale of charges in relation to telegrams. He has not indicated the scale with which he proposes to replace the existing charges. He has stated that the loss at the moment is running in the region of £500,000, and he proposes to increase charges in respect of telegrams, including Press telegrams.

This is yet another device to collect taxation not adumbrated in the Budget. The Budget was introduced some months ago and heralded triumphantly by the Fianna Fáil Party because it did not make provision for any increases in taxation as compared with the savage Budget introduced in 1952. But since the Budget of this year we have had successive Ministers coming in here informing us that they require yet another £500,000 for this service or that service.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs earlier this year asked for £1,000,000 in respect of increased charges for letters, parcels and telephones. Now he proposes to throw overboard the existing scale in relation to telegram charges. This is a concealed method of imposing further taxation upon the community. It was the practice at one time for a Government in its annual Budget to indicate what the financial position was and what the proposals were in relation to increased taxation. This year we were told there would be no new taxation under the Budget, but since then successive Ministers have come in here with measures involving increases in taxation.

The Minister now intends to abolish a deficit of £430,000 and for that purpose he will have to increase taxation by almost £500,000. He has not made a good case for this increase with theexception of his statement that a number of years have passed since the introduction of the existing scales. I do not think the Minister has paid due attention to the real need for this service. He has admitted that similar services in other countries do not pay. He has admitted that they show a deficit. He now proposes to reduce the deficit here in respect of this service, or to abolish it altogether. This is merely another supplementary budget. The Minister has not given us any specific indication as to when it is proposed to introduce the alteration in these charges. All he has asked us to do is to give him a blank cheque. When he gets this Bill through, he will then ask for an examination of costs so that he can come in here and impose a new scale of charges by means of an Order in order to abolish the present deficit.

The Bill proposes to abolish the maximum 1/6 for 12 words and the specified increased charges for more than 12 words. At the moment there is a limit of 6d. payable in respect of telegrams sent on Christmas Day, Good Friday and on Sunday. If this Bill goes through that limit will be abolished. We must bear in mind that this service is used primarily as a matter of urgency. It is used in the case of deaths, accidents, serious illness and so on. These aspects appear to have been ignored by the Minister. He appears to be interested only in grappling with the deficit.

In 1939 the deficit was in the region of £140,000. Comparing that figure with the overall figure of the present time and with present day costs the Minister must admit that, if the abolition of this scale of rates is justified to-day, it would have been equally justified in 1939. When the Minister comes in here asking us to agree to throwing overboard the existing scale of charges he should at least be able to put before us in a general way some examination of the costs and he should also outline to some extent what his proposals are.

This will be a very serious matter for the citizens who normally avail of the service in connection with their domestic affairs. It will affect commerciallife. It is proposed to abolish the scale which applies in respect of Press telegrams. Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, as amended by the Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1915, prescribes that the rates of charge for Press telegrams shall not exceed 1/- for every 80 words transmitted between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m., and 1/- for every 60 words transmitted between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., and 3d. for each copy of a Press telegram sent out to each additional address after the first address.

Under this Bill, people engaged in commercial life, newspapers who are obliged, for obvious reasons, to avail of this service and private citizens will be obliged, if the Minister decides to close the gap, to subscribe from their resources almost £500,000 in the form of taxation. It can only be described as taxation if it replaces the existing scale.

This is a public service which should have been preserved without interference. Other countries do not consider it necessary to close the gap so far as this service is concerned. They realise that the sender of a telegram could not be expected to bear the full cost, that the spread-over should help to make it easy for all sections of the community. I have in mind, for instance, the telegram which it may be necessary to deliver in a rural area where there is no telephone service or other means of sending an express message. The delivery of a telegram may involve a journey of five to six miles. In those circumstances the service is not economic, but in the absence of a better telephone system and having regard to the need for a telegram service the existing scale of charges should not be abolished and the service should be continued without alteration of rates.

The Minister did not make a case for abolition although he did indicate that there is a deficit of £400,000. It appears to me to be a quiet way of informing the Dáil and the country that it is proposed to increase taxation by almost £500,000.

Mr. Norton

I am afraid I can hardly agree with the viewpoint whichhas been expressed by Deputy Rooney on this Bill. I find it difficult to convince myself that Deputy Rooney is convinced by his own arguments. In the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the Bill it is stated very clearly that at present Press telegrams are accepted at a rate of 1/- for every 80 words transmitted between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. and 1/- for every 60 words transmitted between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. and that these rates were fixed by the Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1915. That is nearly 40 years ago. Is it reasonable, in 1953, to ask for organisations like newspapers, who earn pretty substantial sums and in many cases pay pretty substantial dividends, that the community should subsidise the Press telegraph service by charging these well-off companies a fee based on standards operative in 1915?

So far as newspaper offices are concerned, they are getting their Press telegrams to-day immensely cheaper than they got them in 1915 because the shilling they then paid to the Post Office bought more for the Post Office than the shilling they give the Post Office to-day. Newspapers were then selling their own product at ½d. per copy but are now getting 2d. and 3d. per copy. Is it reasonable that they should ask that the scale of charges for Press telegrams should be related to conditions operative in 1915, nearly 40 years ago?

I do not think that is a reasonable argument. I do not think that newspapers which maintain a sense of balance and discretion in these matters would attempt to say, in 1953, that they should be charged 1915 rates for Press messages, especially in view of the enormous depreciation in money values which has taken place in that period. I do not imagine that any normal leader writer will attempt to write a leading article decrying a reasonable increase in Press telegram charges in the light of conditions prevailing to-day.

I can hardly imagine that the general user of Post Office services feels called upon to subsidise a telegraph service which is providing a special service for newspapers at 1915 rates. Newspaperswill frankly recognise that they have been getting away with these rates for far too long. A sense of justice and discretion on their part might long ago have induced them to complain about the Post Office administration for continuing to provide a service at such hopelessly uneconomic rates for pretty wealthy organisations, as newspapers have come to be in the past 50 years.

I do not imagine that there will be any great slump in the stock exchange in newspaper shares as a result of the introduction of this Bill, nor do I imagine that enthusiastic members of the Fianna Fáil Party will take any less pride in the Irish Pressbecause it has to pay increased charges under this Bill. I imagine any reasonable newspaper owner or shareholder will recognise that they have been doing very well out of the subsidised Press telegrams which they were receiving at the hands of the Post Office administration.

Charges for inland telegrams were last fixed in 1928. Values have changed enormously since 1928. The Post Office telegraph service has had very serious, indeed, deadly, competition from an expanding and efficient telephone service. In every country in the world telegrams have been decreasing, while the telephone service has been expanding. British figures show that in 1938-39 there were 48,000,000 inland telegrams sent in Britain. That is in a highly industrialised country with a rather complex commercial life. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the British Administration to develop the telegraph service, the number of telegrams sent fell in the year 1953-54 to an estimated figure of 34,000,000.

At all events, between those two years there was a constant downward trend in the inland telegrams sent not only here but in Great Britain and in every other country in the world. In Great Britain, I think, the loss on inland telegrams in 1938-39 was 5d. per telegram. That loss has increased from 5d. per telegram in 1938-39 to 2/9 per telegram in 1952-53; and no increase in the traffic will cure that growing deficit because the economics of the telegraph organisation both in Great Britain and here show that themore telegrams you handle at the present rate of charge the greater the loss is; so by merely increasing the number of telegrams passing through the Post Office at a time when there is a loss on each telegram merely tends to increase the loss, and there is no remedy, therefore, in either increasing the number of telegrams sent or in any reduction in tariffs. In fact, the British Administration, I think, in 1935, endeavoured to see what the effect would be of a reduction of telegraph charges, believing then in response to some temporary clamour that reduced charges would result in an improvement in the financial position of the telegraph service; but in a memorandum prepared by the British Post Office recently on that subject this statement is made, and it is interesting lest the same point of view might be put in the course of this debate:—

"Cutting the tariff was tried in 1935, but although this increased the traffic in the first year by 30 per cent., the net result that year was an increase in the inland deficit by 50 per cent. In 1938-39, the traffic was 50 per cent. above the 1934 level, but the deficit had increased by 66 per cent. In fact, the revenue from induced traffic was insufficient to counterbalance the loss of revenue from the cut, and costs were increased to cover the handling of the additional traffic. There seems to be no prospect, therefore, of reducing the inland telegraph deficit by cutting the tariff.

"Indeed, with the present disparity between income and expenditure per telegram, any increase of traffic within the bounds of practical possibility would, even without a cut in the tariff, serve only to increase the deficit. It seems evident that any worthwhile reduction could be achieved only by a material contraction in the scope of the service or by a steep increase in tariff; to break even, the tariff would have to be more than doubled without any consequent reduction in traffic, a most unlikely result."

I think it is pretty well known that the pattern of our telegraph traffichere is running in miniature much the same as the British pattern of telegraph traffic has been running for many years past. Therefore I think that in all the circumstances a good case is made for a review of the existing telegraph charges, some of those charges having been fixed in 1915 and others in 1928, so that I do not imagine that the Post Office administration could be accused of viciousness or impetuosity at this stage in asking to have those charges reviewed.

In any case, I think that the method adopted in this Bill has something to commend it. In the circumstances of 1868 or 1888 it is understandable that there might be a desire to put in the charges for the services in a Bill, but the modern approach to the problem of fixing charges has been, where the State is the operating authority, to give a Minister of State power to make regulations fixing charges and varying those charges from time to time. This Bill proposes to do that, and I think that the change is not only desirable but the authority of Parliament is maintained over those charges by reason of the fact that the Minister is obliged in the fixing of new charges to make statutory regulations and those statutory regulations have to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore there is no question of giving the Minister power which he can exercise by stealth. He has to make the regulations and to put them on the Table of the House. The regulations can then be discussed and annulled by this House, so that the control by Parliament has been preserved to that extent. I think that that is pretty effective control.

I would like, however, to have seen this Bill against the background of the report to be made by the committee which is investigating the matter. The Minister is getting power in this Bill to vary the charges and to make new statutory regulations, but it is a pity that we should not get the report of that committee so that this whole question might be discussed against the background of that report. However, I suppose we can discuss the report when we see the statutory regulations, because they will provide anotheropportunity for a debate, and I hope that this report will be made public so that we can discuss the whole position.

Nobody who has studied the position either here or elsewhere will deny that with the rapidly developing telephone service the telegraph section of the Post Office administration is meeting with very keen competition, and very keen competition from itself. This is the case because after all the more the Post Office develops the telephone service the more it provides a very keen competitor to its telegraph service; and, over and above that consideration, the public have shown a disposition to avail of the obvious advantages which the telephone service has by reason of the personal contacts which can be made through it and by reason of the speed at which it is now possible in the expanding telephone economy to make contacts between persons who desire those contacts. In circumstances like that the telegraph service is really in a difficulty, and I do not know whether at this stage the Minister has himself formed an idea as to what the policy should be so far as the telegraph service is concerned. I would like to know, for example, whether the Minister's mind is travelling in the direction that his problem will be solved by restricting the scope of the telegraph service or whether he hopes by methods of expansion or popularisation to be able to bring to the telegraph service, with new tariffs, of course, a greater volume of traffic than is handled by that service at the present time. It may be, of course, that the Minister has left that to this committee which is dealing with the matter, but it is important that we should know what is the main administrative policy of the Post Office so far as the telegraph service is concerned.

Quite a considerable number of people in the Post Office are employed in the telegraph service, so that any deliberate policy of restricting its scope will have serious consequences for those people not only from the point of view of the stability of their livelihood but from the point of view of the contraction of their opportunitiesfor advancement in the telegraph service. I am quite sure that in any report on this subject the conditions of the telegraph staff will be adverted to, and I would like to get from the Minister when he is concluding on this Bill an assurance that in so far as the report of the committee may affect the livelihood and prospects of the telegraph staff there will be reasonable consultation with the organisations representing the staff so as to ensure that the minimum of hardship, if indeed any hardship, is inflicted upon them. Apart from these considerations I think that a case is made for the Bill, and we propose to vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Rooney in his approach to this Bill was seeking headlines without any sense or description attached to the headlines. He started off by saying that this Bill proposes to throw overboard the scales of charges, and another of his objections is that the Minister has not indicated the new rates to be substituted. The Minister said that a committee is presently working on this matter and examining it with a view to coming to the Dáil at a later stage and stating the new rates to be charged and, possibly, giving the reasons. But that does not satisfy Deputy Rooney. He says that this is a new and additional form of concealed taxation. He does not regard at all the position of the rates charged to newspapers for commercial purposes and the loss arising in the Post Office which has to be met out of taxation. In other words, without knowing it, Deputy Rooney is advocating that the taxpayer should subsidise cheap telegraphic rates for, as Deputy Norton has pointed out, wealthy large business undertakings in the shape of the newspapers.

I do not know why Deputy Rooney does not try to balance his mind on this matter by examining the position that exists so far as the treatment of the taxpayer and the general public by the E.S.B. with regard to charges is concerned. As a commercial undertaking, they are entitled to make their charges meet their costs, and all their costs, as far as possible. The Post Office also is run on commercial lines,but Parliament still has an absolute control because, when the Minister comes again to the Dáil to announce the new rates, obviously an explanation will be given as to why these new rates are considered necessary, and so on.

In effect, Deputy Rooney says: "This is concealed taxation and, rather than have concealed taxation, keep the deficit going." How does Deputy Rooney imagine the deficit is met? Is it not met out of taxation and not out of increased payment from the users of the service? When will Deputy Rooney get some clear view of what is going on around him?

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Briscoe

I was on the point of the muddled thinking of Deputy Rooney. In effect, he said: "Rather than have concealed taxation it is better to have the deficit." The deficit has to be met in some form. We either borrow and give the amount borrowed to the Post Office to make up the deficit and pay the interest charges on it or we vote a sum of money from the ordinary income of the State to wipe out the deficit. Deputy Rooney wants the deficit maintained and a cheap telegraphic service to all and sundry.

The gems of wisdom that fall from the lips of Deputy Rooney are beyond comprehension. We have heard talk of a "concealed" and a "Supplementary" Budget. Rather than that undertakings such as newspapers should be made pay an up-to-date price for an up-to-date service—and possibly a much improved service compared with that which existed in 1915—Deputy Rooney says, in effect: "Retain the Budget. Let them charge four times the price the paper cost in 1915, but give them the service at a loss to the State." Then, in his confused thinking, he talks about protecting the taxpayer. Does he not realise that this Bill will pave the way for protection of the taxpayer by relieving the taxpayer of what might be termed the subsidy which at present exists inrelation to the cost of the telegraphic service for newspapers.

When this report is being considered, I should like the Minister to convey to the committee, if he thinks it fit, the possibility of having a report that will be so comprehensive that we can examine it here in a variety of aspects when it comes before us. Perhaps the cost of the different types of traffic can be disclosed—the number of words used or, if you like, the number of telegrams sent by newspapers and other commercial interests as distinct from the ordinary member of the public who sends an ordinary message. We might then be able to see—certainly the committee would be able to see—how equitable charges can be brought about so that a reasonable portion of the burden of the cost will be borne by the ordinary people. I do not know whether Deputy Rooney is aware that a great deal of the use of the telegraph service is cross-Channel and overseas. Are the overseas people and the cross-Channel people—who are the people who use this service—the taxpayers about whom Deputy Rooney is concerned?

I should like to put this further point to Deputy Rooney. If we are to maintain 1915 charges in one case and 1928 charges in another case, does he expect the people who are now working in the Post Office to exist under the terms and conditions and wages that operated in 1915 and prior to 1928? Does Deputy Rooney not think that the workers in the telegraph service and the Post Office generally are just as much entitled to the benefits and the advances in the standard of living as employees in other spheres of activity and, if he thinks that they are entitled to these benefits, does he consider that the taxpayer should pay the difference in this matter?

This Bill is a means of removing from the taxpayer the subsidy which has been necessary by reason of the fact that the charges for the telegraphic service have not been brought up to date. I do not quite follow the reference that was read out by Deputy Norton with regard to a loss being sustained despite the sending of an increased number of telegrams.

It may happen in certain cases, when some service is uneconomic, that the more the service is utilised, the greater is the loss, but I feel that this committee examining this matter may be able to devise different rates and different charges for different classes of service so that there will not be a greater loss. I do not know what percentage of the traffic in telegrams is represented by newspaper services, but I have no doubt that if we doubled the charges in that respect, we would not double the loss.

Mr. Norton

Perhaps the Deputy misunderstood me. I said that if you continue to get more traffic at the present rates, if you double the traffic at present rates, you do not reduce the loss because each unit is carrying a loss. The British tried the experiment of reducing the charge, and, while they got more traffic for a time, it was more than counterbalanced by the loss. The only way in which you can get more revenue is by increasing the charges.

Mr. Briscoe

I misunderstood the Deputy. I agree that the only way a loss can be reduced is by increasing the charge, even if you do, to a certain extent, reduce the traffic. Apropos of what Deputy Norton hinted at but did not ask directly, may I ask if it would be possible that the report of this committee would be circulated to members of the Dáil, so that they would have a chance of considering it, and, when it comes up for discussion, giving their views and making suggestions with regard to it? If the report is kept strictly confidential and if the Minister merely comes in here and tells us that these are the heads of the findings of the committee, it will not be easy for us to judge whether or not there should be changes here and there. It would be a good thing for the Minister to consider whether some form of report giving a good deal of information should not be made available.

Deputy Rooney talked about a particular type of telegram, the telegram which is sent to a rural part of Ireland and which has to be carried four or five miles by messenger. I wonder if,when this report is being studied, there could be a segregation or breaking down of the various types of service provided under this head.

There are people who have telephones, and these people know that if they want to send a telegram, they can send it over the telephone. If the recipient is also a telephone subscriber, the telephone should be used for delivery of that telegram, a confirmation being sent only if requested. That would cut out a great deal of the manpower and cost involved in the delivery of a telegram. There are other people who send telegrams over the telephone to people who have not a telephone and vice versa, but I feel that, since the Post Office has always made it clear that the service provided is provided on strictly commercial lines, we should ask that a detailed examination be made of its operations and cost of operations, with alternative suggestions for cutting down costs and possibly educating the public to a greater understanding of the use of the telephone service. This, in itself, would help to bring increased revenue and result in a cutting down of the deficit in the running of the service.

I see nothing wrong in the Minister's approach to this House. He tells us in advance that he has a committee working on this matter which will tell him in due course what changes he should make in charges, in order that the taxpayer may be saved having to meet losses on the undertaking. He has not come in here, as Deputy Rooney stated, asking for a blank cheque. He has said quite reasonably, openly and frankly: "I am asking you to pass the Bill because I will be coming along with new proposals in this regard, and the House will then have an opportunity of examining them, of discussing them and of deciding on them." How anybody can stretch his imagination as far as Deputy Rooney does is beyond understanding by me. He reads into this proposal concealed taxation and another Budget. These are the headlines Deputy Rooney would like to get, but I want to tell him that this is a means of avoiding the necessity for possibly a Supplementary Estimate or a SupplementaryBudget, and to lessen the taxation he is talking about.

Mr. Rooney

Like the tax on butter.

Mr. Briscoe

I could talk on butter on another occasion; I cannot do it on this Bill.

Mr. Rooney

You admit there is a tax on butter?

Mr. Briscoe

This is unlike the tax on butter. I do not know whether there is a tax on butter or not.

Mr. Rooney

There is a tax of 5d. per 1b. on butter.

An Ceann Comhairle

As Deputy Rooney knows, that is scarcely relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Briscoe

I wonder if it would be possible for Deputy Rooney to use the brain power he has to answer a few questions: first, is it fair that the taxpayer, the ordinary man and woman in the street, should be asked to subsidise losses on a service for certain individuals or undertakings?

Mr. Rooney

It is available to all persons.

Mr. Briscoe

I am afraid that some types of machinery operate only in reverse. I am stating positively that the position is that newspapers, as a group, are causing a serious loss in the revenue of the telegraph service, because they are being charged rates which existed in 1915. Is it fair that this loss should be made up by Deputy Rooney and myself who are not newspaper owners, any more than are the other taxpayers? Is it possible that that will sink in and be digested by Deputy Rooney? Could the Deputy get his thinking out of reverse and think in the way normal people think? This Bill proposes to remedy that situation and when Deputy Rooney goes home to-night and goes to bed for his night's repose, he will perhaps reflect on this Bill and will begin to think that it is going to do what he wants and that its rejection would have the opposite effect. He will then thank goodness that the Dáil, by a majority, had sufficient sense to ruleagainst him on this occasion. I believe that a little reflection will bring the Deputy to the frame of mind in which he will understand what it is proposed to do here.

In conclusion, I certainly hope that the Minister will consider asking the committee to present a report which can be published with as much detail as possible. None of us knows, not even the Minister nor I, what percentage of traffic or what percentage of income results from the service, say, to the newspapers. I do not know whether he can tell us what percentage of traffic or income results from commercial use of the telegraph services as distinct from what Deputy Rooney had in mind and beyond which he could not think. A telegram which I might send him congratulating him on the 25th anniversary of his wedding day, or on the birth of triplets, is the type of telegram Deputy Rooney had in mind and no other.

The Dáil would like to have as much information on this matter as possible. We, the members of this House, are running the postal services, particularly the telegraph service as far as we can, as a commercial undertaking on behalf of the public. I am very anxious to have information as detailed as possible because I personally have an objection to outside bodies having the full authority and the power in regard to public services and the Dáil having no power to interfere with them. I believe that if this report is given to us, as frankly and as clearly as I hope it will, it will be shown that it might be better for us to have some control over all our State owned institutions such as the E.S.B., the railways and so forth rather than the system that exists at present.

I say that deliberately though I may be quite wrong. The report when it comes out may show that it would be better to have a board of management such as in the case of the E.S.B., free from any control of the Dáil, free from any questions as to why a postmaster was put in here or a telegraph boy was not employed there, so that the Minister could be in the happy position of saying: "I am not responsible.That is the concern of the board of directors."

I say here and now that I will be very surprised if when the report is produced it cannot be shown that a Post Office Department run by a Minister of State on behalf of the Dáil, with whatever staff of officials he requires, can be at least as efficiently run and managed as under any form of control of which we have experience in this country. That is why I am pressing the Minister to make it clear one way or the other. I am in favour of the present system of control of the Post Office and I am against the type of control which has been set up in the case of the E.S.B. I am sick and tired of looking at high walls without knowing what is going on behind them and without getting any satisfaction when questions are asked as to why people should have to pay this or that or why this or that is done. I do not believe that is a type of control which is in any way superior to that of a Department which is under the control of the Dáil in its day-to-day activities, right down to the appointment of a postmaster, a postmistress or a telegraph boy. In conclusion may I ask Deputy Rooney to reflect on his approach to this matter and then to consider whether in fact he did not start off in reverse? Maybe he may be able to get into ordinary gear from, say, to-morrow morning and recognise that this Bill is a step in the right direction.

Deputy Cogan rose.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order. May I point out that there is an enormous amount of business to be transacted before the end of the session, and that many and ample opportunities will arise on the various Estimates which are to be discussed, to advert to the financial policy or the taxation policy of the Government? This is merely a Bill to alter the method of making increases in telegraph charges by way of amending the ancient legislation with which we have had to deal up to the present. The new rates will be brought into operation by statutory regulations whichmust be placed on the Table of the House. There is a vast amount of work to be done and, if we could keep within the limits of the Bill, I think it would be much to the advantage of the Opposition as it would be to Deputies on this side of the House because it would leave more time for the discussion of Estimates on which every aspect of the financial policy of the Government can be adverted to.

Mr. Sweetman

I am sure the Chair will take notice of the criticism of the way in which the debate is being conducted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So far as the Chair is aware, the debate has been kept within the limits of the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I think the House will agree to accept the Bill as presented. It is significant that there were only two members of the Opposition in the House when the Minister concluded and that 50 per cent. of that Opposition endorsed the proposed amendment of the existing law. The other 50 per cent., as represented by Deputy Rooney, took the peculiar and unintelligent view which we always expect from Deputy Rooney.

Mr. Rooney

Is the Deputy any judge of intelligence?

Mr. Cogan

Every time that Deputy Rooney intervenes in a debate in this House his efforts merely cause Deputies on all sides to wonder how such a very large head can accommodate such a small brain.

Mr. Sweetman

Is he a senile delinquent or are you allowed to use that expression any more?

Mr. Cogan

The idea underlying this Bill is to ensure that this service will pay its way in all its branches. I do not think that any case can be made, or has been made, from any side of the House to support the suggestion that certain sections of the community, who derive a considerable benefit from the telegraph services, should be subsidised. I appreciate that in certain isolated cases where people living in rural areas have got to send orreceive telegrams, because of the fact that they are not served by the telephone service, they may find it rather costly but it is so rare that telegrams are received by people in remote rural areas that the cost does not very much concern them. In many cases, the news they receive is not as good as that to which Deputy Briscoe referred. It is not always congratulatory; it is very often the news of the death of some relative. In this connection I want to draw the Minister's attention to one point. That is that in many rural areas telegrams are delivered, not from the nearest sub-post office but from a sub-post office four, five or six miles distant. That I think is due to the fact that there are a number of small sub-post offices which are linked up with the telephone system, which are not regarded as telegraph offices and therefore do not deal with telegrams. If the Minister wants to cheapen the cost of telegrams to people living in remote areas, he might make provision for the delivery of telegrams from the nearest sub-post office. That is one of the ways in which porterage charges could be drastically cut.

Very few people in rural areas are living five or six miles or more from the nearest sub-post office which is linked up with the telephone system, but there are a very large number of people living more than five miles from what is recognised as a telegraph office. I should like the Minister to look into that aspect of the question. It is one of the ways in which a certain saving could be effected and that saving, of course, would be passed on to the person sending or receiving a telegram.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Rooney, in making observations on this Bill, stressed that the purpose of the Bill was to levy taxation whereas in fact, the purpose of the Bill is to alter the method by which charges in the telegraph service can be amended from time to time. The question of telephone, postal and telegraph charges has been raised in the course of the debate and I do not think that I need repeat again the statements I made at frequent intervals to explain to the public the necessity for increasing postal, telephone and telegraph charges. We have had a considerable debate on this matter already on the occasion of the Estimate and there have been other occasions when I have done my best to act as a super public relations officer for what is really a commercial service and to give in detail the financial circumstances of the service, to describe why we view it as very important that the service should pay for itself.

It would be very easy for us to ignore the constantly increasing costs in salaries, wages and materials which have occurred during the past 15 or 20 years. If we ignored these increases, we would inevitably reach the position that the entire service would be losing £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year and when that point was reached, as I have already indicated, the most magnificent administrative officers and the most loyal workers in the staff of the Post Office would not be anything but human if they said: "Why bother about giving good output when we know the taxpayer will pay what is becoming so large a sum of money that no Government would ever dare to impose any charge sufficient to cover that deficit." But perhaps in as few words as I possibly can I can give the reason why every head of postal services throughout the world, who has some regard for efficiency and for spending the people's money wisely and well, desires that the services should pay reasonably well. In fact, the postal services taken as a whole have lost about £500,000 in 20 years, making something in some years, losing in others, and balancing in some years.

I should add in that connection that over £1,000,000 in charges was either imposed or sanctioned by the last Government under the administration of Deputy Everett. I thoroughly approve of every single change that was made. It was justified. Whatever our disagreement may be with the Opposition on other matters, they made no alteration in the general tradition of the postal services, just as we made no alteration in the general tradition in regard to the postal services when we first took office in1932. As I said, the amount imposed was £1,000,000. The greater part of it was imposed by way of statutory Order, just in the same way as it is proposed to alter the telegraph charges in future if this Bill passes both Houses.

In reply to one Deputy, I should say that salaries amount to 70 per cent. of the total cost of the telegraph service. Everyone knows that there have been constant increases in salaries and it is important, as Deputy Norton said, that whatever changes we make are of a constructive character. I should indicate in that connection that the telephone service is expanding so rapidly that if there should be a redundancy in the telegraph staff as a result of any proposals put forward by the committee and sanctioned by me the staff concerned can without difficulty be absorbed in other branches of the service. I can foresee no action being taken which will result in any notable or widespread unemployment in the postal service where thousands of our people are employed.

Deputy Rooney asked what we had done to try to make the service operate more efficiently. I indicated at the time of my speech on the Estimate the establishment of teleprinter routes in place of Morse and that policy is being continued. The number of internal Morse circuits in operation from 1st October this year is 47 as compared with 68 in 1948. But before the end of 1953 we hope to convert some 16 more circuits to telephone-telegram working and some four further Morse circuits will be scheduled for conversion to teleprinting work. That makes for some economy, but before the setting up of the committee I can say that the economy will not be of any vital significance in the sense that it would help to reduce the enormous deficit on the telegraph service.

Mr. Sweetman

How many teleprinter circuits are there?

Mr. Childers

There are now in operation 21 teleprinter circuits.

Mr. Sweetman

And 46 Morse circuits?

Mr. Childers

A total of 47 Morse circuits.

Mr. Sweetman

Then there are 68 circuits in the country.

Mr. Childers

We are gradually establishing other telephone-telegram circuits or teleprinter circuits. Deputy Norton spoke about the fact that the value of money has changed a great deal and I suppose the best way I can describe that to the House is by pointing out that we provide a fee of 1/9 for the delivery of a telegram for a distance of three miles from the post office. That means that for each telegram which is being delivered two or three miles in the country the net amount available to pay the whole transmission costs of the telegram is a sum of 3d., and that explains one reason for the very great loss which is suffered in the operation of the telegraph service. As I have already indicated, it would be impossible to work out accurately what exactly was the loss on each telegram sent, but it would not be an exaggeration to say that it must be at least equivalent to the amount paid for the telegram.

With regard to the committee which is sitting and examining all these questions, I do not think that the committee's report, which will be of a highly technical character, will be suitable for debate or for publication. But, as Deputies have noticed, I take the course of giving the maximum information in the House with regard to the working of the services, and it would certainly be possible for me at the time of the Estimate to give the main conclusions and the facts that have been formulated by the committee in so far as I agree with them and in so far as they can serve any useful purpose in any discussion that might take place, if and when the increased charges for telegrams are imposed.

Deputy Briscoe asked for one particular fact which might be of interest to the House and which I can give now, and that is a rough analysis ofthe number of telegrams sent at the present time. Approximately, the figures are as follows. Business telegrams amount to 32 per cent. of the total. This is in volume and not in value. It would be impossible for us to estimate the value of them. Telegrams of a domestic character amount to 47 per cent. Telegrams of a congratulatory character and telegrams of sympathy amount to 15 per cent.

Mr. Sweetman

Are they not domestic telegrams?

Mr. Childers

No. The domestic telegrams would be concerned with private travel arrangements—arrival and departure and similar matters. That is rather difficult, naturally, to analyse in detail. Telegrams of a miscellaneous character amount to 6 per cent. so that it will be seen that quite a proportion of telegrams are of a purely business character.

Deputy Norton, in making a very constructive and helpful speech, pointed out that there were various methods by which we could alter the method of administration of the telegraph service or the method of operation to bring about economies for justifying increases in charges. There are a number of such alternative schemes. We could adopt a greeting telegrams service with special paper and envelopes. In some countries this has reduced the loss on the telegraph service by encouraging people to send their congratulations in a very pleasing form at a much greater cost. This would apply to people who are being married, people reaching their majority and so on. We believe that at the present time that particular form of greeting service would not be likely to get us out of the difficulty. It would be too costly to operate.

It should be obvious to Deputies that we could charge tariffs defending the rate at which telegrams are delivered. That would be another method of altering the incidence of charges. We could have charges according to the character of the telegram sent. That, I understand, is almost impossible to effect. It wouldbe very hard to ask the staff of the Post Office to classify telegrams. That it is not a practicable method of altering the incidence of the charges.

I mention these three alternative methods as ways out of the difficulty. I have made no decision on the question. I could not do so until I see the result of this committee's work.

Deputy Briscoe, apparently, was not aware of the fact that telegrams can be telephoned immediately to a house by a request from the sender and delivered by post afterwards, perhaps with the next delivery of letters. That makes certain savings in delivery charges. Unfortunately, even though the system is in operation for a little time, there is no visible sign of any great savings being effected. No doubt, it must effect some saving under certain circumstances.

Mr. Sweetman

If a telegram is sent to a telephone number, does it then go by telephone automatically?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister said if the sender made a request. I do not think it is necessary to make a request. Addressing it to the telephone number is the request.

Mr. Childers

It automatically implies that it can be telephoned.

Captain Cowan

That happens every day.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Briscoe does not know that.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Cogan mentioned cases where the centres of delivery for telegrams appear to be rather far away from the house of the person to whom it is addressed. That is a matter which relates to the general administration of the service. There may be a very good reason for it. It depends on the number of telegrams delivered at that post office. A number may have to be dispatched a considerable distance. It may relate to the difficulty of getting a casual messenger even though we have increased the fees.The difficulty of getting these casual messengers in certain areas is having the attention of the committee which is examining the whole question of the telegraph service.

I think I have answered all the points put forward by Deputies. I recommend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House because it follows precedent already created both by the present Government in its former administration and by the last Government in the Bill which they left me to pass through the House by which there should be a similar method for making alterations in charges in regard to the postal, telephone and telegraph services.

Mr. Norton

I asked the Minister would he give an assurance, when speaking, that if the report of this committee was calculated to adversely affect the conditions and prospects of the telegraph staff concerned discussion would be required with their organisation before any irrevocable decision was taken. I take it that that would be the Minister's own desire.

Mr. Childers

As the Deputy knows, there has been a tradition for a considerable number of years whereby we work in the closest collaboration with the union. If there were any fundamental changes of that character envisaged, we would certainly consult them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3rd November, 1953.