Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1929

Vol. 11 No. 8

Public Business. - Central Fund Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Central Fund Bill, 1929, be read a Second Time."

Mr. Johnson

One of the matters that I want to raise on this Bill, or shall I say, to initiate a discussion upon, is the proposal in regard to the curtailment of postal services in the country. The policy of the Minister for Finance is alleged to be responsible for the action of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in reducing the postal services in country areas. One gathers that the expectation is to save a sum of about £40,000 or £45,000 yearly by substituting a three-days' delivery for a six-days' delivery, and thereby saving the wages of 700 or 800 auxiliary postmen. Now, the matter can be discussed from two angles, that of the curtailment of services, and that of the effect upon employees of the Post Office who are being transferred from the National Exchequer to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the first instance, and to home relief in the second. The case appears to me to resolve itself into this, whether the Ministry is wise, whether it is good policy for the sake of an appearance of economy, for the sake of transferring a book-keeping item from one account to another, to curtail the services of the Post Office in the manner that is suggested. It is, I think, quite true to say that the proposal is merely a book-keeping proposal. It is not going to be a real saving. There is no real saving on the country as a whole. There may be in the Post Office accounts. Those 700 or 800 men are employed as auxiliaries, and nominally it is expected of them that they will have some other employment supplementary to the one in the Post Office, but I am informed on the best authority, that probably not more than 10 per cent. have wage-earning employment outside the Post Office. Many of them may have gardens. Many of them may have supplementary employment of a kind that is not wage-earning, but which, perhaps, adds a little to the family resources, but the actual money return on which they live is, in respect of 85 to 90 per cent. of the cases, the money they receive for work as Post Office servants.

In many of these cases the men have been 20,25,30 or 35 years in the particular service, and it is now proposed to reduce their duties and consequently their pay by half. The inevitable effect, in respect of those who are completely unemployed, which will be many, will be that for the period in which they are in benefit they simply transfer themselves to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and in many cases will be better off for the time being as unemployed insured persons than they would be in the Post Office service, but when that has been exhausted, one knows that in rural districts there is seldom any alternative employment to look for, and in the great majority of cases they will be transferred to the Home Relief Fund. Now that cannot be called national economy, and while it may suit a particular Department to have that kind of appearance on the books, it is not good business, it is no economy, and it is bad politics— I am not speaking of politics now in the narrow party sense—but it is bad national housekeeping. What is the effect? The effect is to deprive a very great percentage of the population of a service of civilisation which has come to be regarded as normal. It may be said that it is a luxury of civilisation, and that it should not be required. People who talk about deprecating " shirt economics" ought not to make a suggestion that the benefit of the luxury of a postal service is one that can be removed without any general disparagement. The community has come to look upon the postal service as part of the normal amenities of ordinary civilised life, and one can see very little reason why there should be deprivation in large areas of this normal postal service. If one could say that there was a very big saving, perhaps one might well balance expenditure against saving, but I suggest, and I think it is incapable of refutation, that there is no real saving to the National Exchequer, because the maintenance of these people will have to come out of some kind of public fund, inasmuch as there is no prospect, at present, at any rate, and one can see no immediate likelihood, of one developing that these men can transfer themselves to new employment. After all, a man who has served twenty years as a postal messenger or deliverer cannot slip into new employment as though he had been trained all his life to that employment, and one's chief criticism of this policy might be said to be that it is an entire reversal of everything said by every public man of common-sense and responsibility, that it is not a good thing for the morale of the people that you should be paying away money without requiring in return some service.

One hears on every occasion denunciations of what is called the dole, of what is called poor law relief, and so on, because it is giving away something to people, trusting them to depend upon a kind of public maintenance without having to give any work in return. Here we have a complete reversal of that policy. These men were receiving 15/-, 20/- or 25/- weekly for part-time services, and they are giving some return for their work. When these 700 or 800 men are dismissed they will be thrown upon other funds, and they will be giving no service in return for their pay. Now I take that to be an evil public policy, and the Senate ought, if only on that account alone, to express its emphatic dissent from such a course of action. People who are familiar with the circumstances appertaining to country districts will be able to speak from the point of view of the resident who is normally in expectation of correspondence. It cannot but have a detrimental effect upon the development of certain commercial transactions that farmers have been encouraged, time and time again, to enter upon. There have been quite considerable developments in some districts of this country through direct postal work. That cannot be possible unless there is freedom of correspondence. Freedom of correspondence almost inevitably necessitates a regularity of post office communications. From every point of view, it seems to be a disastrous departure on the part of the Post Office service, and I hope the Senate will express itself emphatically in dissent from such a policy.

I do not want, at this stage at any rate, to go into detail in regard to how it is going to affect individuals; but I have numerous complaints, letters and explanations as to its importance, and as to how it is going to affect individuals here and there and in all parts of the country. We hear of the effect upon the public service as a service, but I am speaking now of the farming community, of creameries and the like, that will be deprived of their daily service of letters unless they can make special arrangements with the towns. All this means reaction from civilisation, reaction from the amenities of civil life, and I think it is a course that should be stopped practically before it is entered upon. I would make this appeal—as it is not too late for the Ministry to stay their hand— for them not to enter upon this course, which is not going to be a saving, but is going to be really detrimental to the public interests.

Dr. Gogarty

It is difficult to criticise the Government without sending a letter to the "Irish Times," but it occurred to me that it might be possible to effect a saving of the necessary money if the tradition of the Post Office could be altered. It may be an inherited tradition— though I am not one of those who wish to recognise the Saxon in any of our shortcomings; I think we have enough of our own—but there is a tradition in this service of marking time. We have had it in the old Local Government Board. You might think that the modern motor-car had not been invented twentyfive years ago. I am speaking now of the delivery of letters. The Post Office certainly is a more heavily-endowed service than that of the private company which represents the "Irish Independent" daily papers, but that company is able to deliver its papers daily in every little hamlet in Ireland, and it has not the same sources of earning as the Post Office, which is now to take the retrograde step of depriving the citizens in country districts of a service for half the week, leaving at the mercy of the country postmistress and the steaming kettle any correspondence that may excite her interest. With the Ford motor-car, it ought to be possible to make a journey of 100 miles a day. If this were a private company selling tea or newspapers, that would be done, and therefore I would direct the attention of the Post Office and of the Government to the fact that the motor-car has come to stay in this country and that it can be obtained cheaply.

There is another aspect of the case, and it is this: I suppose Governments cannot be accused of breach of contract; but the actual condition of the service that obtained when the Government was returned to power, the fact that the service was there in actual fact, and that the Government were returned in order to keep such services there, with law and order to support them, is a consideration which the Government should realise; in other words, it is indebted to the community, in so far as that service interested the community in the Government's return, and this is a breach of contract in a Government way. I suppose that Governments are not amenable to the ordinary laws, but it would be a breach of contract in any public service if, in the middle of the year, they curtailed it to such an extent as is now proposed.

There is another consideration which will affect the Government very much. Few people are still able to maintain themselves in a private capacity in country places. One great threat to public health and to modern conditions is the overcrowding of towns, and if the people who are upset and unable to communicate with the outside world for half the week were to leave these country places, there would be overcrowding in the towns, which would be greatly to be deprecated; in fact, I would go so far as to make a census of people in the cities who came from the country, and I would forbid anybody, in view of modern facilities of transport, entering the cities. I think we should have places outside the City, like Leixlip and Lucan, developed, to prevent overcrowding and prevent the people coming into the City—to extend Dublin and make it Greater Dublin. It is a strange thing to see, with transport so perfect, with £5,000,000 spent on the roads, and with their surfaces prepared in such a manner that one can make a circuit of the whole country in about thirty hours, that the postal service should be curtailed and all this inconvenience caused. I have been quite astonished at the letters which I have received asking me what I now thought of my friends.

Politically, whether it is, as Senator Johnson said, small politics or greater politics, I am interested in this matter, and I think the Government are doing themselves a certain amount of damage that may be remembered to them when the election day comes. In this matter, politics has been mixed up with commerce. It does not require the first notice on to-day's Order Paper to show that commerce is the predominant thing in the nation and that politics is a sort of frill for people of ideas and imagination to amuse themselves with. But wherever politics touches commerce it is a serious matter; and on all our future developments, the steps that are being taken towards industrialising the country and towards making for sources of wealth, which would be quicker than the seasonal source of agriculture we are putting, to my mind, this avoidable curtailment. The framers of the Constitution provided in theory that we should not discuss finance, and if we could discuss it, we might not have the data on which to form opinions, but the Seanad is able to discuss finance in the guise of the postal service and of economy. I do put it to the Minister that by speeding up the service and achieving what has already been achieved by a newspaper company, the money might be saved and the people also saved from this very great discomfort, to put it in the lowest way. I thought it might mean an injustice, inasmuch as it might be taken to represent a breach of contract, but, as I say, political contracts are not the same as commercial contracts, and I would like to have the commercial and the political kept separate in this matter.

Colonel Moore

I am sorry that the Minister for Justice is not here. I tried to communicate with him just before the Seanad met to tell him that certain criticisms might be made here, but he could not be got. I want to call attention to the indiscipline that occurs in the C.I.D.——

Sir John Keane

On a point of order. Would it not be appropriate to finish the discussion on the postal service first? Otherwise there will be overlapping.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot prevent the Senator from going into this matter. You are in order, Senator Moore.

Colonel Moore

I wish to call attention to the numerous cases of indiscipline in the C.I.D. force. It may be remembered that this time last year I called the attention of the Seanad to the shocking ill-treatment of Mr. Tuohy during the election campaign in the South, when he was frightfully beaten—maltreated in a horrible way—and laid up for a long time. I happened to be in the hotel in Tralee at the time. I do not want to go into that now, except to ask if any steps have been taken to discipline those members of the C.I.D. who were connected with that affair, which was condemned in an extremely strong manner by the Court at the time. This man was tried before the Court, and I read out the statement of the Judge, who condemned his ill-treatment in the strongest manner—I do not want to take any partisan view of the matter—but that was the decision of the Judge. I would like to know if anything has been done to discipline those people who deliberately waylaid and beat this man. Since then there has been a number of other cases; it would take too much time if I were to go through all the misbehaviour of the C.I.D.

But a case has arisen quite lately in the case of a Mr. Glynn and of a Miss Jennings, of Bloomville House, Portarlington. It happened in this way: Their place was boycotted for a considerable period, and finally the house was partly burnt. The police were sent for, and after a good deal of investigation, which I need not bother to go through, Mr. Glynn thought they were not doing very much, and he came up to Dublin to see the Minister for Justice on the subject. When he went back he was asked what the hell he meant by going up to report the police. Sometimes he was ill-treated and threatened, and finally he was arrested and a conspiracy was made—I can call it a conspiracy—by the C.I.D. men to charge him and Miss Jennings, an old lady of seventy, with burning her house. I am not going to say what my own opinions are on the matter; it has nothing to do with me. The case was tried twice. Glynn was asked what the hell he was doing with the Minister for Justice, getting the Guards into trouble.

He then told the sergeant of the Guards—I do not want to mention names—to do various things, and he was arrested, put in prison, let out again, put in prison two or three times, sent to Mountjoy, and he was told when he was in prison that Miss Jennings had admitted the whole thing, in order to extort a confession from him. Miss Jennings was arrested and told that Glynn had admitted the whole thing, and that she had better do something, or that else she might be spinning a rope to put round her own neck. All sorts of illegal practices were committed. After months and months of detention, some of the time out on bail, they were eventually brought up for trial in Dublin and acquitted of the whole thing. The old lady was accused of burning her own house, and in her defence she said: "Do you think I was going to burn my dear old home, every stick and stone of which I love?"

The matter came before Judge Wakely, when a claim for compensation had been put in, after the two had been acquitted, and here is what Judge Wakely said: "Miss Jennings and Mr. Glynn have been treated absolutely wrongly from the date of the fire and the time of the trial in the criminal court—they have been shamefully treated." He referred to the treatment of Miss Jennings during what he described as the "bad times," and he went on: "Glynn's life has been in danger again and again, but he stuck loyally to his work and the effort to protect Miss Jennings' property." Then the Judge went on to refer to the fact of Glynn going to the Ministry of Justice and complaining there that the Civic Guards were not looking after Miss Jennings' property, or attending to the complaints made about the trouble she was put to, and the Judge thought very few people would have the pluck to do that, but Glynn did it, and, of course, he is the worst in the world for that, the Judge said. It half made him sad, he continued, to see in a civilised country a person or persons bringing forward a claim for compensation treated as Miss Jennings and Patrick Glynn were treated, and he hoped that he would never in his life hear of such a case again. Then he went on to say that, because she put in a claim against the County Council she was prosecuted for deliberately making a fraudulent claim to get money from the County Council. In her evidence, went on the Judge, she said: "Do you think I was going to burn my dear old home, every stick and stone of which I love?" That was the charge on which she was dragged through the Criminal Court, the Judge said, the charge of burning the dear old home she loved. The disgrace of that would reflect on this county for many a long day, and he hoped in God such a thing would never occur in the Free State again.

That state of affairs is pretty constant in this country. I do not wish to impute blame to the ordinary Gárda, but I do honestly impute great blame to the members of the C.I.D. force, or at all events, to some of them who do these things. It is a perfect scandal, and it ought to be remedied. I daresay that these things may occur from time to time in other countries, but in other civilised countries when these things are done, the Minister concerned and his subordinates see that discipline is carried out. If discipline is not carried out, the law will not be respected. Ministers complain that the law is not respected. How can it be respected when this sort of thing goes on? In Dublin the other day, numbers of young boys and young women were arrested and kept in prison, without any charge being made against them. When the police were asked why they arrested and kept them, they said that they arrested them, not because they believed them to have been guilty of certain things, but because they wished to examine and cross-examine them as to where they had been on certain days, and what they had been doing, and they arrested them to get whatever evidence could be got. I think the Minister for Justice ought to see that discipline is maintained. I remember in the time of the Black and Tans saying that if General Macready did not discipline the Black and Tans and his troops he would fail in the object he wished to achieve, and he did fail. I made the charge of indiscipline myself, and I told him that. As a result I was arrested. Anyway, what I suggested happened, and very much on account of that indiscipline the Black and Tans were driven out of the country. Here we have the same thing again, and if these things are not put a stop to there will be no peace in the country. I wish that the Minister for Justice were here to tell me why these people, who have been guilty, and who are shown to have been guilty by a Judge who was not prejudiced in the matter, have not been properly punished.

Cathaoirleach

So many subjects may be discussed on this Bill that I think it would be well to follow up one at a time. If any Senators wish to follow up what Senator Moore said, it would be better for them to do it now, and then we can return to the postal question, if the House will allow that suggestion. Of course I cannot dictate to the House, but it appears to me that it would be better to discuss one subject at a time than to carry on an acrimonious debate on two or three subjects at the one time.

Mr. Connolly

I do not propose to say very much in addition to what Senator Moore has said on this matter of the Civic Guards and the C.I.D. He has made his plea for better organisation and for better control. I would like to refer for a moment to the expenditure involved in the maintenance of the Guards, and in doing so, I do not wish to approach the matter in any spirit of carping criticism; I merely wish to ask if we are really getting value for the money that is being expended; if the force that is being maintained throughout the country is necessary for the maintenance of law and order, and if this force could be reduced, and economy effected. Throughout the country I hear on all sides that there are so many Guards in a little barrack in such and such a place and that they do not seem to have much to do during most of the day. I do not know whether it is a practical proposition —I suppose it could hardly be looked upon as such—but on the one hand we are cutting off postal supplies and on the other we are maintaining a very considerable force of men who seem to have comparatively little to do during the day, and I suppose that it would be revolutionary to suggest that these people might deliver letters, or do something to justify their expense. However that may be, I think it will be admitted generally that throughout the country the Gárdaí are hardly fully occupied, and I think that a considerable saving could be effected by a reduction of the force.

Another aspect of the question is that the Gárdaí are expected to collect data for the benefit of certain Ministries, notably with regard to agricultural production, stock, and so on. I am informed on very good authority that this data supplied by the Gárdaí is entirely misleading, that a Gárda is told anything that the farmer likes to tell him, and this has serious reactions in so far as the information may be entirely misleading when used in any economic survey of the country. I think it is an important thing that if these people are responsible for the collection of economic details we should get accurate returns, not simply that there should be a mere formal visit by the Gárda to ask: "How many cows have you? How many acres have you under wheat? How many acres have you under potatoes?" and for the farmer to tell him anything that comes into his head. I think that that is a point that might be looked into in order to see whether the Gárdaí are doing properly what belongs to the civil side of their work in making up these returns. I do not want to labour the matter any further. I feel that the amount spent on the Gárdaí might be considerably reduced. In going through the country and in seeing numbers of these men practically unemployed for the whole day, it occurs to one that they have too little to do, or that there are too many of them. I suggest that that is one item where considerable economy could be effected.

Mr. Jameson

As far as the Guards are concerned, one can only speak from experience. I know that as far as my travelling about the country goes, I see the Guards doing a great deal of work. For instance, take the question of the watching of rivers, and that sort of thing. Those of us who fish a little have found a very remarkable and a very great change for the better with regard to the care of the rivers. These fisheries are a very valuable asset to the country. The Guards are very nice about it; they do not make trouble but they do watch and help. Undoubtedly they are very good at that. There is no doubt that when people are distributed all over the country with guns, dogs, and all sorts of things, doing what they please, the Guards are required in the country nowadays, and they perform their duties quite properly.

As far as these agricultural returns are concerned, I have a good deal to say to prices of various grains, and I have something to do with cattle and one thing or another. I read these returns very carefully, and as far as one can judge from one's own knowledge the men who send them to the Department must be intelligent men to make them worth reading. We study them, and we get very clearly the prices that are ruling throughout the country. From a business point of view—take barley, in which we are interested— the returns that we get as to the amount in the country, as to whether there is a shortage of this, that, or the other thing, which enables prices to be calculated, are good and reliable, and we are asked to curtail this service. That is the experience of one who merely watches the matter from a business point of view, and I think it is only fair to say that.

Mr. O'Connor

I wish to corroborate what Senator Jameson has said about the Guards. I have had experience of the Guards coming to me for returns of cattle and crops, and I must say that my experience has been that they have been most attentive, praiseworthy and courteous. The Guards who look after the figures in connection with farming are mostly farmers' sons themselves, and they take quite an intelligent interest in having these returns made out in a satisfactory way. It would be a very poor compliment to the farmers to say that they make fools of them, or give them false figures. These Guards are quite capable of getting intelligent returns, and I can testify to their courtesy and civility.

Mr. Linehan

As regards this question of the Post Office, which arises on the reduced amount asked for by the Minister for carrying on the postal services, I see by the Estimates that the amount is reduced this year by a sum of £192,000, and I understand that from £40,000 to £50,000 will be saved by the new system of postal delivery in the rural areas of three days a week instead of six days. Considering the demands that have always been made on the Government for economy, I think that we ought to be very pleased that the Minister has decided to make such a big cut as £192,000 in the postal services. I believe that the farmers and other rural dwellers will be quite satisfied with a three days' delivery instead of a six days' one, when they know that by that system such a large sum as from £40,000 to £50,000 will be saved to the State. I gather from the statement made by the Minister in the other House that it will be possible for the rural dwellers to get their letters at the local post offices by sending for them if they so desire. That would be sufficient to enable people who expect letters on a certain day to get them. A regrettable feature of this is, of course, the throwing out of employment of 700 men. I know that a good many of those rural postmen are only part-time officers, and that for a portion of the day, when they have completed their rounds delivering the letters, they are employed by farmers as agricultural labourers. If they get agricultural employment they are quite competent to do it.

I would suggest to the Minister for Finance that he should consider carefully the amendment put forward by the leader of the Labour Party for the encouragement of the production of home-grown wheat, in connection with a tariff on flour, for the purpose of keeping our mills going, that is to come before the Dáil one of these days. Deputy O'Connell is putting forward that policy. I regard it as a very sound one, and I am prepared to give it my heartiest support. I am satisfied, if it were carried out, that in a very short time far more than the 700 men who are now to be disemployed would receive employment.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he has given any consideration to what has occurred in neighbouring countries in respect to the de-rating of agricultural land, and the relief thereby given to agriculture. Perhaps it is not too much to expect that the matter will be dealt with in the coming Budget. If that is not to be the case, then I hope the time is not far distant when the matter will be taken into consideration and arrangements made to place the Irish farmer in at least as favourable a position as that occupied by his brother-farmer in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

With regard to the agricultural grant which is given for the relief of the rates, a good many people seem to have a very imperfect idea as to its meaning and what it really is. As I regard the expression "grant," it means giving something for nothing, but in this case, when the Local Government Act of 1898 was passed, the agricultural grant was merely the equivalent of the landlords' portion of the poor rate which the tenants or occupiers had then to take upon their shoulders. I think it is rather a mistake to call that a "grant." I suggest to the Minister that he should take this question of the de-rating of land into his consideration as soon as he possibly can. I cannot see any greater means than it of helping agriculture in this or any other country.

It appears very unjust that a man with an income of from £500 to £1,000 a year should contribute nothing to the support of the poor, of lunaties in asylums, or to the upkeep of roads except the amount of rate based on the valuation of the house he lives in. That valuation may not be more than £10, while a struggling farmer, with possibly a big valuation and scarcely any income, has to pay a big rate for the services mentioned. I would like to have the views of the Minister as to whether he has considered this question of the de-rating of land, and what we may expect in that regard in the future.

Sir John Keane

My views on the matter of postal deliveries are very much in accordance with those expressed by Senator Linehan. Nobody, of course, likes to be inconvenienced, but it is up to the critics of the Minister's policy to suggest alternative methods of effecting economy. Economies come along, but nobody likes them. I do not feel myself that I could oppose the economy suggested unless some substantial alternative be suggested.

The point made by Senator Johnson applies to almost every economy that one could think of: that you are going to dislocate existing employment and for the time being impose some inconvenience and probably put an increased strain on the Unemployment Fund. If you are to get efficiency and consider each section on its merits, you cannot condone any employment which has not got an economic and efficient justification. I do not agree with the Senator as to letters being a necessity or a blessing to civilisation. I think they are the curse of civilization, especially in the seasons when the income tax people get busy. I should be very glad indeed if I only get my letters once a week at that period.

There is just one point that I would like to call attention to. I think that the Minister might get the Postal Department to consider the method employed in the delivery of letters in Canada and America. There they have an extremely satisfactory system. They have wayside boxes which can be slewed round so that they can be filled from the side of a motor car. I imagine that the delivery of letters here could be accelerated tenfold if a system of that kind were introduced. In Canada the householder has his box at a convenient place on the main road, and calls to it for his letters. I would imagine that if such a system were adopted in this country there could be an enormous increase in deliveries. I do not believe people cannot be trusted not to tamper with these individual boxes.

There is one other matter that I wish to refer to, and that is the question of the delay in the vesting of land under the 1923 Land Act. It is now nearly six years since that Act was passed, and only some ten per cent. of the holdings have been vested. Solicitors tell me that they cannot explain the reasons for the delay. In some cases where the title was perfectly straightforward, where all the preliminaries have been discharged, maps lodged and everything done, the delays continue. It may be that there are not sufficient inspectors. I suggest that it would be good economy to sanction an increase in the Land Commission staff in order to get this vesting of lands settled. The tenants have to pay a ten per cent. increase in interest in lieu of rent during this period. That is not only a great hardship on the tenants but it is also a hardship on owners, who have to pay interest at very high rates. If the land were vested, the owners in many cases could discharge their capital obligations by the payment of stock.

Mr. Counihan

I was surprised to hear Senator Linchan and Senator Sir John Keane state that this would be a blessing in disguise for the farmers, and that they welcomed the proposal to reduce the delivery of letters to the farmers of the country from six to three days a week. I cannot agree with these Senators. I am inclined to agree with Senator Johnson that it is a disastrous proposal. If the proposal is carried into effect it will, I believe, raise a storm of protest that the Government will find it hard to withstand. I think they will have to give way under it. To say that sixty per cent. of the people of the State should have their postal deliveries reduced from six to three days in the week is, to my mind, a most unjust and unreasonable proposition. During the last fortnight or three weeks I have been through many parts of the South, West and Midlands of the country, and I can say that the sole topic of discussion amongst the people in trains and at fairs I attended was the effect which this proposal will have on the rural communities, if carried into effect. I appeal to the Minister for Finance to reconsider this matter, and to endeavour to find some other method of effecting economy than that of the indiscriminate cutting down of postal deliveries in the rural areas from six to three days a week.

The Minister states that this will mean a saving of £40,000 a year in the Post Office. I am afraid that is a very questionable figure if we take into account the number of men who will be thrown out of employment. They will have to be put on the dole, while the revenue from postage stamps will be considerably reduced. If we take all that into account, as well as the inconvenience and loss caused to the farming community, I think the Minister would be well advised to reconsider his whole scheme, apart altogether from what the two farming representatives in the Seanad have stated.

Mr. O'Farrell

I am afraid that this economy, in the case of the Post Office, is largely inspired by the desire on the part of certain people to get back to what are called the old days. It is certainly bringing us back, in certain districts at any rate, just one hundred years. In portions of the County Dublin to-day to which this new arrangement will apply, they had three deliveries in the week a hundred years ago. These deliveries were between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Under the new arrangement, I understand, the deliveries, in order to include the cross-Channel post, will not be made until after noon, so that we are back one hundred years, with a late-day delivery instead of an early-morning delivery as was the case a century ago. Of course, a farmer has got into the Post Office. As one of those who stood out for merciless economy at all costs and in all directions, and being a consistent man I presume he feels that he has to begin at home. Therefore, the unfortunate Post Office is to be the victim of his tomahawk. Ever since the Free State came into being, the Post Office has been the Cinderella of the Service. It was the first institution that was attacked after the Provisional Government was set up, and it has been attacked ever since.

Some of the salaries paid in the Post Office are a disgrace to civilisation. If Senators take up the Estimates they will find that there are 19 part-time telephonists paid at from 3½d. to 6¾d. an hour. Others are paid at from 3¾d. to 7d. an hour. I see that a charwoman, part-time, is paid 4½d. an hour. I say that to bring a poor woman in for, say, two hours in the morning, make her pay her tramfare, or walk if she cannot afford to do that, and then offer her 9d. for two hours' work, which I think is about the average period occupied in the cleaning out of offices, the lighting of fires and the washing down of rooms, and so on, is a disgrace to the Post Office.

I find that a charwoman, employed full time is paid 18/- a week. The Estimates also show that part-time auxiliary postmen, in some places are only paid from 6½d. to 7½d. an hour and that women are paid from 5½d. to 6½d. an hour. This is the Department in which this new economy is to be effected. The total saving estimated is £192,000, of which it is expected £42,000 will be achieved by the dismissal of 800 auxiliary postmen. I think that we could congratulate the Minister and say that he had done very well by saving £150,000 in one year and without disturbing these men.

A return furnished by the Post Office Workers' Union shows that less than 10 per cent. of these auxiliary postmen have any other employment. If they have to go out in the morning delivering letters it will be very hard for them to get any other kind of employment. Very few employers will require them for the remaining part of the day. We all know that when any job is likely to be had huge numbers of men turn up for it. There are thousands of men who cannot get work of any sort. Therefore, it is most unlikely that men, who have any little job at all, are going to get work elsewhere in their spare time.

The Minister for Finance has repeatedly, in these formidable tariff debates that make the welkin ring in the other House, given particulars of the amount of additional employment that has been provided as a result of the imposition of tariffs. You have had the case of £150,000 additional being imposed on the country through tariffs for the sake of giving employment to an additional 500 men. Here, for the mere saving of £42,000, it is proposed to throw 800 men out of employment. I cannot see the consistency of that policy at all. After a most elaborate debate we had a tariff imposed by the other House on glass bottles for the purpose of keeping 25 men in employment. One year after the tariff had been imposed the number of men employed in that factory was less than the number employed there before. That was the result after all the public time that had been wasted in discussing that case. Tariffs are imposed with one object: of trying to keep men in employment and of giving work. To give work to provide the necessaries of life is, after all, the main object of humanity, but here by a stroke of the pen 800 men are to be thrown out of employment. I doubt if any industry in this country which has recently been given the advantage of a tariff is going to absorb these 800 men.

The tourist districts, which are mainly in the rural areas, will, of course, come under this new regulation, and are certainly going to suffer. If you are only going to have deliveries of letters on three days a week, then I fear that hotel bookings and various other arrangements in regard to the tourist traffic of the country are going to suffer in places like Glengariff, Rosapenna and the railway hotels down south. We are now to have just three days a week for bookings by letter in hotels, and this in a country where we are told we have rounded the corner. I suggest that this is an instance of applying the policy of the huxter instead of the policy of the enterprising, courageous business man.

I am afraid that the Minister, or whoever is responsible for this pitiful economy, has been unduly impressed by the wave of pessimism that has been developed by certain interested speakers and writers. I read the other day an extract from a speech by Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, which reminded one of conditions in this country. He said that one of the tasks of the Australian Press was to get rid of pessimism. According to some people, he said, Australia's problems were so overwhelming that it appeared impossible ever to reach prosperity. "Acres had been written about the drift from the country to the cities. America's story was Australia's story, but one hundred times worse. Australia's difficulty was solvable. Our troubles are so few that we make a devil of a fuss about those we have." So that the pessimism that we hear so much about and the hard bad times are not confined to Ireland. At the very worst they are only transient difficulties that will pass, and there is no need at all for our Ministers to get into a panic and wipe out essential services that are a necessary feature of civilisation—that are necessary to trade and progress.

By making this economy the Government propose to throw this large number of men out of employment. They propose to do that while, as I have said, they have repeatedly imposed additional taxes on the community tending to increase the cost of the necessaries of life with the avowed object of providing employment. I hope it is not yet too late for the Government to give reconsideration to this question, which is one that affects such a large area of the State and such a large number of people, and which, I suggest, will give the country the name of having taken a definite step backwards.

Mr. Jameson

Though I am aware it would not be in order for me to speak a second time in this debate, I should like to say a few words in connection with the postal services. When speaking earlier I omitted to refer to this matter, as there was some little confusion, I think, as to the manner in which the debate would proceed.

Cathaoirleach

As there was some little confusion about the matter, I think I must extend to the Senator the privilege of speaking a second time in the debate, though, strictly speaking, he is not in order under the Standing Orders.

Mr. Jameson

I agree with Senator O'Farrell that, from the business point of view, this reduction in the number of letter deliveries per week is a retrograde step. We are trying to get people to come to this country and spend their money here. These people were in the habit of getting their letters and newspapers every day. They may come here to hunt or to spend a holiday. What will they think if, under this new arrangement, they can only get their letters and newspapers three days a week? We will be looked upon across the water as a retrograde nation. I say again that this is a retrograde step. Are we, for the sake of £40,000 a year, going to deprive people of the facilities they have enjoyed and of pursuing their business properly? Take even the case of Senators. Many of the members of this House live in the country. If letters are only to be delivered three days a week, then I fear the notices sent out calling the House together will not, on many occasions, reach Senators in time. I think that under this new regulation it will be impossible, at times certainly, to summon Senators to meetings here unless the method of the 1/6 telegram is used. Having deliveries on only three days a week, Senators cannot rely on getting their letters in time. Take the case of Senators who live some distance outside the City of Dublin. In these days of motoring, a man can quite easily carry on his business in the city and live ten or twenty miles outside of it. When going home in the evening he can be certain that he will have his letters in the morning. He knows from the letters he receives whether it is necessary for him to come into town that day or not. That will not be the position in the future.

I doubt very much if the Minister has considered the need of the commercial community. Some Senators seem to think that the farmers of the country can do without a daily delivery of letters, and that their requirements will be amply met by deliveries on three days a week. I suggest that the position will be very serious for a business man living in an area where you have only deliveries of letters on three days a week. This new regulation is going to cause him immense inconvenience. He will not get his paper in the morning and will not know what is going on. In that event he will have to send a telegram or use his telephone, which is extremely expensive. I think this is a most retrograde step for the Minister to take. It is certainly a very serious matter as far as the business and farming community are concerned. There is a sum of over twenty millions a year raised in taxation here, and in order to balance his Budget I cannot understand why the Minister for Finance should have picked out as a saving this item of £42,000 in connection with the Post Office. The result of it will be to inflict great hardship on a most estimable class of people, and very real injury on the commercial community.

When one moves in business circles on the other side one is reminded that telegrams here cost 1/6. When you go into a Post Office in London to send a telegram and the official sees that it is going to Ireland you are told that the charge is 1/6. I suppose the British Government gets sixpence out of the 1/6. Our letters cost us 2d., while at the other side the charge is 1½d. It seems to me that the Government ought to try some other method of effecting economies before they propose an arrangement of this kind, which is calculated to inflict so much hardship on the commercial and farming community of the country and, in my opinion, to injure the country in other ways. If this is the only saving that we can effect, then the sooner that we give up shop the better.

Mr. Duffy

I would like, as a rural dweller, to protest against this proposed change in the delivery of letters. I cannot understand how it can be justified when we realise that from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the total wealth of the country is produced in the rural areas. Surely the dwellers in those areas, who are doing the vast bulk of the work of the whole State and who are earning practically all the money that comes into the Exchequer, should not be deprived of a daily post and expected to carry on business in an up-to-date fashion at the same time? I do not think that this is really economy. I believe what will happen if this change is brought about is that any up-to-date business man or farmer will of necessity have to send to the post office if he wants to get his letters daily. In many cases that will entail financial loss. It will possibly necessitate the using of a pony or a motor car for the purpose of getting the letters. You are going to put those people who want to carry on their business in an up-to-date fashion to extra expense.

I believe it would be far better to increase the price of the letter stamp than to do away with the daily deliveries. I believe that would be more acceptable to the people of the country, even if the price of the stamp were raised to three pence, than to reduce the delivery of letters to three days in the week. I am well aware that many of the letters postal officials deliver are of little use to the community. I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned with is that where a man wants to keep in touch with the market, wants to know the current prices, and wants to keep in touch with the tendency of things in his own particular industry, he should not be debarred from doing so by reason of the fact that he cannot get a daily letter delivery. I believe that this reduction of postal deliveries is one of the worst kind of attempts at economy, and I think the Minister should very seriously consider whether he cannot abandon this proposal and continue the present system.

Mr. Douglas

One hesitates a good deal before opposing any economy. My own feeling is that a daily delivery in the Free State, apart from any of the arguments used, is a thing of real value, and that the publication of the statements that have been made here may quite conceivably do a certain amount of harm. I feel a difficulty in this debate, principally because we have had no clear statement on this particular subject we are discussing, and one cannot depend entirely on the statements one sees in the newspapers. I do not think this House can do anything. I think the position is that whether or not this reduced estimate is passed by the Dáil it will not come before this House, and that all we can do is to talk. I would like the Minister to make it clear first, is this simply a reduction in the delivery of letters to the houses? Secondly, will there be a delivery, as before, every day to every post office in the Free State? If there is to be a delivery daily to every post office in the Free State, while I still think this proposal is a mistake I do not think it will be a national hardship. If the letters are sent to the Post Office every day, then there will be no question, for instance, of tourists being handicapped, as suggested by Senator O'Farrell. I would not like it to go out that tourists travelling in Ireland cannot get their letters every day, unless it is true. I hope the Minister will deal with that point.

I am still of opinion that this proposal is a political mistake, but I do not think that if you are maintaining a postal delivery to every post office that every evil set out in this debate is going to happen. I am assuming there will be delivery to every post office. I hope an authoritative statement will be made on the matter and that it will appear in the Press, so that whatever the harm is we will know what it is exactly and not get exaggerated reports spread all over the country. In connection with the economies in the Post Office, I would like to know could the Minister give us any idea of the cost of the work done by the Post Office for other departments. Is that estimated at all? Are there any figures available? If there are not, and if those are not credited to the Post Office we do not know the annual loss to the Post Office. It used not to be done, but I do not know the present position. I think if the country is to judge as to how much it can afford to lose or spend on the Post Office it should know what is the cost of the Post Office by itself. Senator Jameson suggested that Senator when in the country will not be able to get letters from the Seanad as at present, and that telegrams would have to be sent out sometimes when convening a meeting of the Seanad. That will not matter as these telegrams will be sent out by the Oireachtas at the expense of the Post Office. If they are sent out no credit will be taken by the Post Office for that. It will be just an additional expense.

My opinion is the time will come when it will be recognised as wise to run the Post Office in much the same way as the Shannon Scheme, that is, as a business proposition— run by a board to make it pay as far as possible, and who would report annually on matters of policy to the Oireachtas. If that were done Parliament could allot a specified sum which it would be prepared to lose, assuming there is a loss. Efficient managers would then in a business-like way decide on the best facilities they could give the country, and we would not be from time to time grumbling against or criticising proposals of this kind with very little knowledge. The proposal for a reduction in the number of days of delivery of letters seems to me a bad one. I can only repeat that I think it would be far better to have a business board on the same lines as the Shannon Scheme which would report annually and get instructions from Parliament as to conducting the Post Office as a business.

Mr. Farren

It seems to me that the present proposals with regard to three-day deliveries in the rural areas will, to a large extent, nullify the good that would accrue in the way of prosperity and employment from legislation dealing with agriculture that passed through the Oireachtas. We had great hopes that the Dairy Produce Act would induce the farming community to do everything possible to produce the best article and to market it in a most satisfactory way. We were all very pleased to note the good results that have been produced. This country was more than holding its own in the foreign markets, the price for Irish produce was going to the top, and we were beating other competitors in the market. If the Minister persists in proceeding with his present proposals I believe he will to a large extent nullify the good work already done. In my opinion he should rather encourage farmers to produce the best and market it in the best possible way and with the greatest expedition. I am not engaged in the agricultural industry, but I have sufficient business experience to know that people engaged in the handling of perishable food products must be in touch with the markets. I think it would be a very retrograde step on our part to place the farmers, who, as has been said, produce from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country m a worse position than the producers of other countries with whom they have to compete.

I think it is all-important that the farmers who are doing their share in building up the country should be put in the position that they would be able to carry on their business on equally favourable terms with those of other countries. If you prevent them from receiving their mails and from knowing how the markets are going on you are handicapping them in the carrying out of their business. I think it is a suicidal act on our part for the mere sake of saving £40,000 to inflict such a great injury on the farming community. Some may think that the only object of the Labour representatives in interfering in this matter is because of the fact that the disemployment of 700 or 800 men is involved. That, of course, is a matter of grave concern to us, and we think it ought not to take place, but at the same time we have sufficient knowledge of the business requirements of the people of the country to know that apart from the disemployment of 700 or 800 men you are going to inflict great hardship on the business community.

For that reason, I think the Minister ought to consider very carefully the whole position before he puts his proposal into operation. He ought to consult the interests concerned. He is entering into this matter very lightly. Economy can be carried too far. It can be false economy. If you are going to save £40,000 in the Post Office Service and by doing so handicap the business community to the extent of £1,000,000, I believe that is false economy. If the business interests concerned were consulted they would have no hesitation in informing the Government that it is false economy. We hear a lot of pessimism about the future of the country. I have not time to waste on the dismal Jimmies who are knocking about. I believe if the people got a fair opportunity, if they put their backs into their work, and if they were given encouragement instead of having obstacles placed in their way and indulging in false economies, we would be able to build up a prosperous and wealthy country.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I think it might be said that every economy is a political mistake, because undoubtedly it is impossible to find any reduction which can be effected in public expenditure which does not arouse more opposition than support. There are certain details in connection with the Post Office changes which I cannot deal with very fully. Deputy Heffernan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Post Office, was not able to be here, but I think I can deal with most of the points that have been raised. The Post Office here is carried on at a loss, allowing it full credit for the service it gives to other Departments. In 1927-28, the last year for which we have figures, there was a loss of about £264,000. That loss was incurred with a letter rate of 2d. In Great Britain, with a letter rate of 1½d., there was a profit. The profit there was certainly due to the fact that there are crowded populations in Great Britain, while for the most part in this country there is a sparse population. The cost of delivery services over a sparsely-populated country is disproportionate to the revenue obtained.

In rural areas the six-day-a-week services are being reduced to three. In a great many rural areas at present there are deliveries on only three days, and those areas will not be affected. Certain people in the rural areas will continue to receive the six-day deliveries. Where the postman has to travel to a sub-post office the people along the route will obtain the six-day delivery. Where the post office is situated in a village there will be a six-day delivery still in the village, and to any houses that can be reached by the postman out on his rounds. Away from the sub-post office they will have a three-day delivery. In answer to the question put by Senator Douglas, there will be a transmission of mails to each sub-post office every day. The postman will leave that sub-post office with mails for some part of the area around the post office every day.

Mr. O'Farrell

That was the case a hundred years ago.

Mr. Blythe

It may have been the case a thousand years ago, but I doubt it. A great number of these services cut off were altogether uneconomic. The number of letters delivered was altogether disproportionate to the cost of delivering them. Even with the three days a week delivery it will be very far from being economic, but we realise that postal services will have to be maintained, not merely at a loss to the post office, but to the Exchequer, and the question is whether it is essential to civilisation that there should be six deliveries a week. You cannot set up a standard six-day delivery and say that is the irreducible minimum. You may as well say that two deliveries a day is the irreducible minimum. There are areas, say, in Dublin, where one delivery a day would not be sufficient or reasonable. In those areas where a three-day a week delivery is to be instituted, we think that is a fairly reasonable service, all things considered. While occasionally some individuals may suffer inconvenience, the great mass of the people in those areas will not be detrimentally affected. The ordinary farmer through the country very seldom gets an urgent communication—a communication that would not do as well, say, on a Tuesday as a Monday. I was brought up in the country, and I do not think I ever saw a letter coming to the house that it would not have suited just as well to have received the next day. There may be, occasionally, people who do business of other sorts than farming who may require more frequent deliveries, and the change will be some inconvenience to a very small number of such people.

I would be very glad if people could devise other means of saving the £40,000 or £45,000 involved. Senator Sir John Keane referred to a system they have in the United States and Canada. I am informed the system there is that at some cross-roads there are 200 or 300 letter boxes. There is a letter box for each family in the neighbourhood. When the postal vehicle drives up the postman goes around from one box to another and he puts the letters into them, and the various families come down, some from half a mile or a mile away, and each, having a key for the letter box belonging to them, can open that box and get their letters. There is no interference with the boxes. It would take a good time to accustom the people here to that. I do not think they would like it anything better than the arrangement proposed. I am afraid that with such a system here, for a considerable time the boxes would be subject to interference, and the arrangement could not be so easily worked. With regard to the men who are likely to suffer loss of employment, I think I have mentioned that in each village there will be a delivery. Senator O'Farrell made a reference to Glengarriff being affected by a reduction in the delivery of letters. There will be a delivery there, and I do not think the tourist traffic will be affected at all.

With regard to the men who will be disemployed, it may be that a considerable number of them have no other employment. There is supposed to be an investigation or an inquiry before a man is employed as a part-time deliverer to make sure he has other means of earning his livelihood. It may be that an examination of that kind is in some instances merely casual. It is quite probable in a number of cases that after appointment men may lose their other employment, and it may be that a considerable number have no other means of livelihood. There are, we believe, a considerable number who have other resources. In dealing with the reduction of these deliveries every consideration will be given to the men affected. In some cases it may be that the amount of pay to the men engaged will be reduced, and that the men employed will be retained. In cases where there are two men one may go and the other take the two areas on alternate days and receive the same money as at present. In dealing with the matter the Post Office will take all the care it can to insure there is a minimum of hardship. It is too much to ask us to accept the views of the men who are to be discharged. A considerable number of them hold other employment. It is suggested that the whole of these men are going to be put on the unemployed list, and something like permanently, but I do not think that is so.

If we were to accept the arguments made in this case we could not reduce the number employed in any branch of the State service, and we could not, as we have done, been able to reduce the numbers of the Army. We would be simply tied to the present expenditure in a great variety of directions. I think that while it is necessary to give all the consideration that can be given to the circumstances of the individuals, we cannot take the view that the State must not disemploy anybody who is in its employment. I do not think that the analogy suggested by Senator O'Farrell with reference to tariffs applies, and that the purpose of tariffs was to help people. Tariffs were imposed for the purpose of creating a new source of production. It was not a case of deciding to provide an amount of money out of the Exchequer so that certain people might continue to be uneconomically employed. The position in regard to tariffs was to impose some burden, or at any rate the possibility of some net burden, on the taxpayer in order that an industry might be established, might strike root, and might provide a permanent source of employment for those engaged in it, and who would be employed ultimately without any charge to the general taxpayer.

I think in this particular case it is a question of alternatives. Have we alternatives before the Post Office which do not involve any unemployment, and which would enable the money to be saved? If alternatives could be put forward whereby the daily deliveries could continue, and the money could be saved, we would be glad to receive them, and I am sure the Post Office would accept them. It comes down to a question of alternatives. When we were looking over our expenditure, and doing what we could to avoid putting a heavy additional impost on the taxpayer, we had to explore all the avenues that seemed to be open, and we could not just simply turn a blind eye to one of them. It may be that if we had not attempted to carry out any economy we might not have had so much complaint as we are likely to have, and we might have been able to get a majority to impose any additional taxation that might be required. I think it is only looking at one side of the case to assume we may have taken the better course in doing that. I think it is wrong to assume that the imposition of taxation for some uneconomic object does not itself affect the country as a whole, because if increased taxation caused no unemployment, then the line we really ought to take is lavish expenditure. No Government can hope that economies will be popular, and no Government can hope to receive other than criticism when any reduction in expenditure is effected, nor can we expect to receive much other than criticism when any reduction is effected. But I think it is entitled when a case is made against a particular reduction to ask those who criticise to study carefully whether there are other alternative ways of getting the money, and not merely suggest that that particular saving should be cut out.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Moore about the C.I.D., I would deny altogether that there is indiscipline in the C.I.D. I do not say that cases of indiscipline might not have occurred. In any police force can you avoid having occasional cases of indiscipline; in any police force can you avoid some occasional wrong-doing by members of that force? But I do say this, that the Government, the Department of Justice, and the heads of the police, have consistently and promptly punished any cases of indiscipline that have been brought to their notice, that no indiscipline has been allowed to continue, and that if, on all the facts of the case, it is shown that any member of the police force did wrong, and that he did that wrong either wilfully or through culpable negligence, he will be punished for it. In punishing men for acts, all the circumstances, of course, will be taken into account, and the errors which were made. If they seem to have been acts that were not quite correct, seem to have been made entirely in good faith, without any animus against any individual, they would naturally be looked upon in a different way from acts that were done through personal animus, or were done with the deliberate knowledge that they were wrong. In certain other cases, extreme provocation would serve as some measure of excuse, and all things would have to be taken into account, but no growth of indiscipline and no practice of indiscipline will be, or has been, permitted. I know nothing about the individual case the Senator referred to. I saw something in the newspaper about the trial. That is really all I saw. I do not know it at all.

With regard to frequent arrests in Dublin lately, the police are acting there under Government instructions, with a view to rooting out the gang of people who have been firing at jurors and witnesses, and generally attempting to hold up the administration of law, and so far as that is concerned, the Government is determined to deal with that with all the vigour that is possible.

Senator Connolly referred to the Civic Guard. I do not say that no reduction in the Civic Guard would be possible. As a matter of fact, some time ago the Government decided to stop recruiting for the Civic Guard, and so long as that decision holds it means that a reduction in the number of the Guards will take place, because the ordinary wastage is somewhere between 150 and 200 yearly. Members of the force fall ill and have to retire for reasons of health; members join other police forces, where they are better paid; members occasionally want to go to America, and occasionally members have to be required to leave, so that there is an annual wastage of between 100 and 200 men, and as long as no recruiting takes place a process of reduction in numbers will be going on. But I do not believe a considerable reduction, which was the term used by Senator Connolly, can be effected. As was indicated by other Senators who spoke, and I think recognised in Senator Connolly's own remarks, the police here have duties other than the duties that police in certain other countries have. For instance, they have the enforcement of the School Attendance Act, which gives a great deal of labour to a member of the force in practically every barracks. They are dealing with the preservation of rivers, the collection of agricultural statistics, and other matters, and even if you take a particular area and are able to say that the police in that area are not fully occupied, it does not follow that you could withdraw them from the area. Sometimes the presence of the police is the only thing that prevents a considerable measure of crime. There have been cases where various sorts of both petty and serious crime has been rife, and by putting a number of Guards in the area, normal conditions have been restored; but, in most of these cases, if you were to withdraw the Guards, you would have a recurrence of the evil which existed before they went there.

As I indicated in the Dáil a week ago, I would like in some parts of the country to have a trial made of the village constable system, which they have in England, and if it worked, and if it could be extended, then the possibility of a considerable reduction would certainly be opened up. But there are areas of the country where, I think, you simply could not try it, where, as I said, you have the poteen tradition, and various bad traditions, traditions of agrarian crime, shall I say, that tend to bring the gun or some other lethal weapon into quarrels about fences, lands, and so on. You have a great number of areas where, for one reason or another, it would be, at present, madness to work with a single policeman, who, in the carrying out of his duties, would rely on the support of civilians around him, and it is because there are only comparatively small areas where you could at present make any alteration in the present system that I think it must be taken that, while reduction might be effected gradually, no considerable reduction can take place. The Government has tried to meet the difficulty that arose by imposing duties on the police that they had not before. For instance, normally the enforcement of the School Attendance Act would have been done by special school attendance officers, who would have been paid by the county councils. The duty of enforcing that Act was given to the police, because it was recognised that where you have to maintain a barrack system with a group of four or five men, there must be times when the men have not really enough to do, or have not as much to do as they ought to have; but because we do not believe we can alter to another system, or take them away, the object was to throw additional duties on the police. In certain other respects additional duties have been thrown upon them, and it will, possibly, prove practicable to give them other duties. But, while economies might be effected in these two ways, by perhaps some small reduction, and by giving extra duties to the police, I think what are called considerable economies are not possible, and to answer the question with which Senator Connolly began, I think the country is really getting value for the money expended. It might be, if there was less expenditure, that there would be a great deal more police work to do, but that would not prove that better value was then being got for the money being expended. To some extent it might truthfully be said that the less the police have got to do, the better value is being got for the money that is being expended on them.

Senator Connolly asked whether the agricultural statistics were being properly collected. I think they are. A Guard who is collecting statistics goes into the house of a farmer, asks questions and takes his answers. I do not know whether he ever checks them, or questions them, unless they seem to be in some way very ridiculous, but we must take it that the ordinary person when questioned about the number of acres that he has under potatoes, the number of acres he has under oats, and the number of cows he has, will give correct answers. He has no reason for not giving correct answers, but if there are occasional errors they, perhaps, balance one another, and, on the whole, I think the primary statistics collected by the police give a thoroughly solid basis on which to work. I do not think it would be possible to do anything more. It would make it inordinately expensive to collect statistics if the police had to check the statements of the people from whom they make the inquiries. When a census is being prepared, you have to take the statement of the householder. You cannot have inquiries into his veracity, and I think nothing different can be done with regard to agricultural statistics.

A Senator asked about the delay in the vesting of lands bought under the 1923 Act, and inquired if there were enough inspectors in the employment of the Land Commission. There are certainly enough inspectors. There have been too many. As a matter of fact, concurrently with the Post Office reductions, a number of inspectors are being discharged. The difficulties, I am informed, are not on the inspectors' side at all—I cannot deal very fully with this— but on the legal side. I understand that vesting has been going on for the last year or so very much more rapidly than before. Such delay as has occurred has nothing to do with the work of the inspectors.

Mr. Wilson

I was waiting for the Minister to say something on the de-rating question. That is of much more importance than the other matters.

Mr. Blythe

With regard to de-rating, that is a very big matter. It is a matter which has been receiving consideration for the past five or six months or more, and it is one on which I am not at present able to make any final or definite statement. In England, the cost of de-rating agricultural land is a very small fraction of the cost of the whole scheme. I forget the exact percentage, but it is very small indeed. The big cost in Great Britain is the cost of de-rating premises where industries are being carried on. It is estimated in Great Britain that after a few years the entire cost of the de-rating proposals will be defrayed from the 4d. duty on petrol. So far as the Free State is concerned, de-rating along the same lines as in Great Britain would cost from £2,100,000 to £2,400,000. The yield of 4d. duty on petrol would be about £300,000, so that the particular duty which in Great Britain, after a year or two, will defray the entire cost of the scheme, in the Free State would defray from one-seventh to one-eighth of the cost of the scheme. Then, if de-rating were carried out here—and I think I mentioned this before—its reactions on the whole problem of local government would be very serious indeed, because there would be county councils which would get 90 per cent. and over 90 per cent. of their revenue from the Central Exchequer, and it seems to me it would be entirely impossible to let local government remain in its present form, or perhaps remain at all, if de-rating were carried out. In England the value of the agricultural land is a little over two per cent. of the entire valuation; in Scotland it is six per cent. of the entire valuation; in Northern Ireland it is thirty-eight per cent., and in the Free State it is sixty-five per cent. I think if we carried out de-rating it would be impossible to allow local government to continue in its present form, because, undoubtedly, a county council which had only to raise one-tenth of its revenue by striking a rate, and which got nine-tenths from the Central Exchequer, would, one way or another, manage to indulge in an orgy of expenditure. On the other hand, if the Central Government assumed control of services which are now locally administered, and paid for out of the rates, there would be no force at all that would stand for any limitation of expenditure. The local authorities, in connection with matters that they have to pay for out of the rates, are inclined to try to shift some of these things on to the Central Government. But they have some realisation now and stand for it in public that service that is given has to be paid for, and that the cost has to be raised in rates, and there are disadvantages in that.

If the Central Government assumed control of services now run by local authorities the clamour for increasing them, and for running them on a more magnificent scale, would be almost irresistible. I do not know whether by running these on a different, and a more costly scale, any real advantage would accrue to the community. That is one of the factors in considering de-rating. The other is the question of revenue. It would take very considerable series of new taxes to raise a revenue of £2,300,000 or £2,400,000. They would fall to a very large extent on the rural community. In so far as they were raised by indirect taxation, they would fall, with certain additions, on the rural community. In so far as that additional revenue was got by imposing a customs duty, for instance, it would mean that the community would have not merely to pay the amount of the duty, but would have to pay the cost of collecting it, which would be very much more considerable than the cost of collecting the rates. In addition to that, it would have to pay a profit on the duty to the wholesaler and the retailer here, and it might very well be that, in so far as money was raised by a customs duty, the agriculturist would be worse off than he was when he paid his rates. In this country, it is a far bigger problem than in England and, as I have indicated already, that is illustrated in England where the effect of one tax, a tax on petrol, would give the revenue necessary, but here a similar tax would only give one-seventh or one-eighth of the amount necessary. It is a very big complicated problem, and, as I said, it is one that has required so much consideration that it is not yet possible to make any pronouncement with regard to it.

Colonel Moore

Might I say a word about what the Minister has said?

Cathaoirleach

I thought the debate was finished.

Colonel Moore

Very well.

Mr. Johnson

On a point of procedure, I propose to raise a more general question on the social and economic policy of the Government, but the point at which it ought to be raised is doubtful in my mind. I mentioned the matter to the Minister for Local Government because what I have to say will largely affect his Department. He hoped to be able to be here during the afternoon. He is not here now, and I am wondering if this matter can be raised to-morrow. I take it that there was a suggestion to carry through to-day, but, if not, at what stage could I mention it?

Cathaoirleach

You could raise it on the final stage.

Question put and agreed to.