Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 17

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUB-HEAD E—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.

With regard to the conveyance of mails by rail it seems that this sum of £320,000, though not quite half a million, is a considerable amount of money. The Minister has said that he has got some reduction on that Estimate. It seems to show £12,000 of a reduction. But notwithstanding that reduction, I think that this £320,000 is a huge amount for the services that the railways render in the distribution of the mails. There is no exclusively mail service in this country. Every mail train is a passenger train. And the mail train is the fullest passenger train. It is the best service on the line; and it is the train most availed of by passengers. To my mind you do not get a proper return for this huge sum of money. You do not get value for your money.

I hardly think that the Deputy realises that every letter that is posted practically, except for local deliveries, which is a small proportion, has to be conveyed by mail train or mail boat. I presume this sum of £320,000 includes not only the mail trains service but also the mail service across the water.

No, it does not.

£320,000 certainly does look a very large sum, but when one realises that it is one of the biggest items in connection with the distribution of letters, the proportion does not seem to me to be unreasonable. What Deputy Gorey loses sight of is the fact that the mail trains would not be there running at their present speed were it not for the subsidy that they get from the mail service.

It is wrong to say that this Vote covers the journeys of the mail service by sea. The Minister told us that the mail service by sea was covered by another sub-head. It cannot be covered by both. Either the Minister is right, or the Minister is wrong. This sum seems a huge amount, considerably more than we should be obliged to pay.

I think we are very, very lucky in not having to pay more. We pay merely 75 per cent. above the pre-war rates. I do not suppose the criticism requires any further answer.

Still I am not satisfied. Deputy Hewat says that practically every letter has to be carried by rail. It is as cheap to carry one thousand letters as to carry one. The number of letters carried in the train does not make a scrap of difference. I still think that this is an exorbitant charge. The Minister has not satisfied me that it is not, and he has passed it over lightly by saying that it is only 75 per cent. over the pre-war rate.

I should be very pleased, indeed, to be able to get better terms.

What are the English terms over the pre-war rate?

The same terms. As a matter of fact, all our charges are on an equal basis with those of England for the carriage of the mails; and these charges, at least as far as the increase over 1914 is concerned, are more favourable in this case than in any other case that we know of in this country. The Post Office is preferentially treated in this respect; and if that question were raised I do think that the railways would be justified in demanding an increase instead of a decrease. So the less we say about it the better.

In that case I will let the Vote pass.

Sub-head E agreed to.

Sub-head F agreed to.

Before you pass from "F" may I ask a question?

We cannot go back on it now.

Sub-heads G, G1, G2, G3, and H agreed to.

Barr
Roinn