asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether suppliers or manufacturers of conveyor belts and other machinery used in postal sorting offices are under any liability in respect of damage caused to postal items while passing through such machinery.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Goods Damaged in Post.
25.
The answer is "No".
The answer was "No".
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's informative reply, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is that no provision is inserted in such contracts to the effect that the suppliers of the machinery will indemnify members of the public who suffer injury by reason of defects in the machine, particularly having regard to the fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs himself refuses to pay any compensation to people whose property is damaged.
The inference in the last part of the Deputy's Supplementary Question is completely invalid. The reply I gave——
The people gave a valid reply last week — twice.
Why is the answer "No"? Why are the suppliers of the machinery not held liable for damage caused by the machine?
We possibly would not get machines of this nature: we could not hold the manufacturers of the machinery responsible for damage. It has to be established.
Of course you can.
Any machine is sold with a warranty that it will not do damage.
The machine supplied to the big expensive new post office in Dublin did not work.
26.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the number of claims received annually in respect of goods damaged in the post; and the average number of items handled by the post office.
I am unable to say how many claims are received annually in respect of goods damaged in the post because a record of the number is not maintained. In 1967, approximately 440 million letters and 8 million parcels were handled by the Post Office.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not remember the goose that was posted in Mountrath and that almost walked to Belfast last Christmas?
That man was compensated. The Deputy might convey that fact to Deputy Ryan. He does not know.
That is one instance the Parliamentary Secretary should not forget.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary know about the ham posted in Muine Bheag that was converted into a bundle of magazines last Christmas? I got the magazines instead of the ham.
The goose arrived on 8th January although it should have been there on Christmas Eve.
Eight million parcels and he wants to know about a ham.
I would have been pleased to get a ham and not the magazines. It is important to me and to the good lady who sent it to me.
27.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if, having regard to the loss suffered by a number of people because of damage done to postal packets and their contents while passing through post office machinery, he will now take such steps as may be necessary, including the introduction of amending legislation, to compensate such people; and, if not, why.
I am satisfied that the present regulations are adequate for the payment of compensation and do not need amendment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Department quotes to people whose property is damaged in the course of postal delivery that the Department is stopped from making any compensation to the person unless the parcel is registered? Can he now say that he and his Department have no responsibility for the articles damaged in the course of postal delivery, including property in recent times which amounted in value to thousands of pounds, damaged in the new sorting machine in the new central sorting office in Dublin?
I am not saying we do not accept responsibility for damage. If anybody proposes to send parcels of any value through the post, it is strongly to be recommended that they register those parcels. I do not think anyone on either side of the House should endeavour to suggest otherwise to the general public. Certainly, if the parcels are registered, we do undertake to give compensation for them.
The Mountrath goose was registered.
And we paid compensation.
Would there not be a limit on the amount you pay?
Up to a limit of £400.
When was it extended to that?
I do not know. They are covered for damage up to a limit of £400. I think that does not demand legislation.
Does that cover loss as well as damage?
Is the Parliamentary Secretary maintaining that the lady in Terenure who received through the post a cardigan which was torn asunder in the sorting office is to receive no compensation because the sender did not register it?
Deputy Sweetman was asking about the limit of compensation in relation to registered parcels.
I am now asking about compensation in respect of a cardigan which was reefed asunder in the sorting office in a defective machine.