Would the Minister explain this section? As far as I can make out, he is taking unto himself something which the Minister for Finance had the right to do in the past. Usually, on the introduction of the Finance Bill or during the Budget debate, we were informed of increases in postal charges, but now in this section—I may be wrong—the Minister is proposing to take unto himself, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the right to increase charges for postal packages. It would facilitate the House and give us a better understanding of the section if the Minister would give us details of his intention in regard to this section.
Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1969 [Seanad]: Committee and final Stages.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
The Deputy says that under the Bill I am proposing to take over a function from the Minister for Finance whereby any increases in postal rates were always announced as a sort of budgetary requirement. This is not so. The position is that, up to now, I, as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if I wanted to get an increased charge, say, for postage, had to get the Minister for Finance to move this and implement it on my behalf. The only change that is taking place from that point of view is that any statutory instrument that does not involve finance—the Minister for Finance is of this opinion and I share it —should be implemented by me. In the same way written into section 2 is a provision that if I wish to make any change which does involve finance I must get the sanction of the Minister for Finance.
Was it not a fact that prior to this the Minister for Finance came to the House?
No.
Was it not always a Budgetary provision?
No. We increased charges on mail towards the end of last year.
Since when did we have this innovation?
This is not an innovation. This has been a fact all the time.
That the Minister for Finance, by order, can increase postal charges?
Yes, this is so.
Somehow I cannot believe it, although I am prepared to accept the Minister's word.
The order and the regulations covering it are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
There is no mention of laying them before the House in this section as it stands.
But this is written into the 1908 Act.
This does not say it is an amendment of the 1908 Act. Prior to this when the Minister wished to increase charges he made an order which was laid before the House and could be the subject of discussion here. Now by this section the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, may make an order. It does not say that that order shall be laid before the House.
That is contained in the 1908 Act.
I would agree if it said this was an amendment of the 1908 Act but it does not say it is.
It does in the long title.
I agree it says it in the long title.
Let us get this clear: Can this House annul any regulation made by order within the usual 30 days?
Yes, the House may, because it has to be laid before the House.
But it is not brought before the House by the Minister? Any Deputy may take the initiative and move that the regulation by order shall be annulled.
In the event of a major change in postal charges, such as, God forbid, making the 6d stamp an 8d one overnight—may we assume that that particular power will still be reserved to the Minister for Finance rather than that the change would be made by regulation?
No.
No. It is a question of a change of formality. Up to now this regulation was made by the Minister for Finance. Now the regulation is made by me, having submitted it to the Minister for Finance and having got his permission so to do. That is the only change. Up to now I had to prevail upon the Minister for Finance to do this and he did it. Now, after getting his permission, I do it. It is simply transferring this function to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
It was not under the 1908 Act that the Minister for Finance did it?
It was, yes. The Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924 covered the transfer of functions from the British Treasury to the Minister for Finance.
It is getting simpler all the time.
When the Minister for Finance did it there was a provision that he laid it before the House, but I see no provision in this section that any order made by the Minister will be laid before the House, and that is what is worrying me.
I am at rather a loss to divine what precisely is in the Minister's mind. At this point in time statutory regulations must be executed directly by the Minister for Finance. Now it is proposed, apparently, that such regulations may be made exclusively by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with the approval of the Minister for Finance. I am at a loss to know the intent behind this.
The Minister for Finance is bound to lay them before the House, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not so bound.
I am, under section 8.
Why not write that in as an amending section?
Section 8 of this Bill, to which we shall be coming, covers this. The final line says: "This Act shall be construed as one with the Act of 1908".
The Minister for Finance is the Minister who is mentioned in the 1908 Act? This Bill sets out to change that from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?
Yes.
The Minister for Finance had to lay it on the table——
I have to do the same thing.
——and any Deputy could challenge it and move its rejection?
Yes.
I think it is a bit subtle. We are not bringing in this ad hoc Bill merely to facilitate the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Maybe it is my suspicious mind but I think there is something else in it.
We have an honest Jack and an honest Paddy, too.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
Would the Minister tell us what is the necessity for this section?
It is there possibly to clear up more misconceptions or worries which the Deputy may have about particular powers I have taken under the Bill. It provides for the transfer of the powers under sections 4 and 82 of the Act of 1908 to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance in regard to financial aspects. Section 4 of the Act of 1908 empowers the Minister for Finance, as the successor of the Treasury, to make by warrant regulations for carrying into effect postal arrangements with foreign States; and section 82 of the 1908 Act gives general power to the Minister for Finance, again as the successor of the Treasury, to make by warrant regulations with respect to any matter which is authorised or required by the Act to be effected by Post Office regulations. It is what could be called a tidying-up operation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
Is this the section that provides for second-class mail?
Yes.
At the moment have we nothing in Dublin but second-class mail?
I do not think that is entirely fair.
We have one mail in the country but I understand in Dublin it is slightly different, that you have nothing but second-class mail. If the Minister gives me an assurance that that is not so, I shall accept it.
I have no problem in giving that assurance. I share with Deputy Desmond this kind of surprise. I do not know what the Deputy means when he asks have we anything except second-class mail: is this from the point of view of the treatment it gets?
Election addresses.
That is one of them.
Surely the Deputy would not have any experience of that kind.
I have not, but some seed has been sown in my suspicious mind.
I am not responsible for that.
I should like to have the suspicion removed. Would the Minister explain to us what exactly is meant by section 4?
The position is that 50 per cent of the total mail posted in Dublin on any given day arrives into the sorting office in Sheriff Street between 4 o'clock and 6.30 in the evening and it has to be dealt with at that stage. If it were possible to leave printed matter, bills, circulars and so on, that are paid for at the cheaper rate, over until the following morning for sorting and despatch that would enable us to give a faster treatment to what we call "first-class mail", the closed letter with the sixpenny stamp. That is the whole object of this section.
Is there not understaffing and is this not a method of containing that understaffing?
No. It is not logical for my Department to make arrangements to take in 200 or 300 temporary sorters between 4 and 6 o'clock in the evening. It has to be balanced out. Indeed, the trade union concerned would be very much opposed to our taking in temporary people for two and a half or three hours and it is with a view to spreading out the work properly over the day that we have brought in this provision. The postal sorter works what I describe as unsociable hours. During the ordinary standard day we want to be able to channel the volume of work spread over an ordinary standard day in order to suit the majority of the staff. It is not a question of understaffing. Even if I were to look favourably at this idea of taking on an additional 50 or 100 extra staff to cover the period between 4 o'clock and 6.30 p.m. the results would defeat the purpose because people would be in each other's way. There would be a certain degree of immobility. The whole idea of this is to stagger the sorting and the best way to do that is, I think, to take the power to enable us to defer this second-class mail until the following morning.
A lot of first-class mail gets mixed up with second-class mail.
This is designed to avoid that possibility.
This is designed to solve that problem. It is designed to enable us to give first-class mail a first-class service.
It should not take 36 to 48 hours to have a letter posted in Dublin delivered to me in my home town.
Will the Minister give us an assurance that the second-class mail will not be unduly delayed? I mean election mail.
I do not think we should term election literature "second-class mail". One cannot get the mail until it is posted.
Deputy O'Donnell could tell us something about first-class election literature in Donegal which bore sixpenny stamps.
I never heard about it.
I will tell the Deputy about it.
It did not happen in my constituency.
Could the Minister give us an assurance that this second-class mail will not be unduly delayed?
There is no ulterior motive in this. The provision is designed to enable us to defer the handling of what we have come to term "second-class mail" during the peak periods so that first-class mail will get first-class treatment. There is no question of the indefinite deferment of any mail.
The mail will be cleared daily?
Yes. It is certainly our intention not to have second-class mail held longer than 24 hours at a maximum.
Is it not a fact that what the Minister suggests is that he will try to accelerate the sorting of mail, but here we are starting off by segregating? We will segregate inside the sorting office: "This should go over there, and that should go over there because it is first-class mail; and that goes over there because it is second-class mail" and then it will all have to be sorted out again.
Deputy O'Donnell should visit a sorting office.
I worked in one.
It must have been a very small and very poor specimen. The facility is a conventional one in most European countries. It is certainly in operation in Britain and Britain is inferior to the standards we have here in many areas. By and large, we welcome section 4 because it will undoubtedly get rid of excessive late afternoon and late evening work by postal staffs while still ensuring that the bulk of the mail posted is delivered the following day. Mail can be sorted on an early morning sorting for late afternoon delivery in the big urban blockage areas, postal surplus-wise. While I would share Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins's concern that there should be no undue delay, I certainly do not think there is any ulterior motive. I believe this will rationalise the whole thing.
I merely mentioned this at the request of the sorters engaged in this particular business.
There is a normal primary sorting operation and the picture that Deputy O'Donnell paints is grossly exaggerated. Really it is unfair. I suggest to the Deputy that he might accompany me some time to Sheriff Street Sorting Office.
Do not forget that I was once a student.
We have a new premises there and far better facilities. There will certainly not be any further delay than 24 hours, even for second-class mail.
What would be the procedure in the event of a strike?
If there were a strike there would be no work done.
Or in the event of a go-slow.
The work would just be done a bit slower. That is all.
Would first-class mail get preferential treatment?
Basically, we must endeavour in legislation to plan for free working conditions. There is certainly no provision in the Bill to cover the kind of situation the Deputy talks about.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Section 5 provides:
Any reference in the Act of 1908, other than in section 4, 82 and 83 thereof, to a warrant shall be construed as including a reference to a warrant made under or by virtue of this Act.
Would the Minister tell us what that refers to?
In reply to the Deputy a short time ago in regard to section 3, I said that section 3 provides for the transfer of the powers under sections 4 and 82 of the 1908 Act to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and, in fact, this deals with the construction of certain references in the Act of 1908, leaving all of the other Act intact if you like, with the exception of the sections referred to in section 5 which are affected by section 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7 and 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.