This Vote has been discussed at considerable length on two successive days, and perhaps if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would now reply to the points raised by the various speakers it might help to shorten the discussion under the various sub-heads.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 56—POST OFFICE (RESUMED).
Am I to understand that the discussion is closed, then, on the main question?
No, it is not closed.
I hope the discussion will be closed upon the special points replied to. We are now embarking on the third day's discussion of these Estimates, and I think it is only right that the various points brought out in the previous days' discussions should be replied to, and I hope to be able to reply to them to the satisfaction of the Committee.
One of the earliest points raised in these Estimates bore on the charges collected for the delivery of telegrams in rural areas. This charge was introduced practically two years ago. It had existed in the old British days in a more modified form but during the war it was discontinued. We found after examination that it was necessary for financial reasons and from the point of view of equity to reintroduce it. The amount collected for the porterage of telegrams, in the first year, amounted to about £41,000; the present collection will be somewhat less than that amount £41,000 is not a small sum of money, and, as I pointed out, we are already losing cent. per cent on our telegraph business. The State must try to draw the line, in its losses, somewhere. It may be that a sum of forty or forty one thousand pounds or whatever the figure may be could be lightly glossed over, and worked into the general national finances without being seen. It only takes twenty-five such sums to make a million of money, and a million of money is a big factor in our general finances, and it is by overlooking sums like this that we neglect the millions.
That is one feature. Another, from the same view point, is that this sum of forty thousand pounds could be usefully applied to industry. It would help agriculture, and it might help a variety of things in the State and, certainly, a variety of things that would be more useful to the State than merely parting with it in the way it has been done hitherto. I see no reason whatever, nor did I at any time, why the recipients of telegrams should not pay for the cost of the delivery of them. We are asking for that to-day, and no more. We make no profit on the transaction and certainly we are not prepared to accept anything less. It is just one of those ordinary transactions for which the citizens must pay and there is no reason why they should escape it simply because the State is the agent. If the rural resident desires to have delivered to him some article of ordinary consumption from a neighbouring town, well, I am very sure he would have to pay for it either directly or indirectly. Likewise, if he wants a telegram delivered it is only just that he should pay for it. If he does not wish to have it delivered he can inform the local postmaster that he does not desire that his telegrams should be delivered to him by special messenger, in which case they can be posted and delivered through the medium of the post the following morning. He can have it one way or another. We intend to continue the present charges.
Deputy Hewat has suggested that the present Civil Service bonus should be absorbed in a common wage. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance has gone into that question or not. I have not, at any rate, gone into it. My own view is that it is premature. However, it is a matter for general Governmental policy, not for one particular Department.
Deputy Davin urged the Post Office to extend its insurance business. The Post Office has been doing some insurance business in a limited way, and it does not look at the moment as if it were likely to extend very rapidly. I personally consider that there are grounds for the consideration of this business. The nation is parting with some £4,000,000 to foreign companies just now, and I doubt if it is getting very full value in return. Anyhow, that is a debatable question and one on which many people have different views. However, it is a question that should receive early consideration. Whether a Department like mine should go deeper into this question is a matter on which I do not venture an opinion, though I feel that it is a Department that could extend in that way. I feel that there is room for extension and I would not be averse to it. As a matter of fact I would rather like the idea of the Government taking up consideration of the whole insurance business. As far as the activities of the Post Office in that direction are concerned, they are not very hopeful at the moment. Deputy Davin also seemed to conclude that the Post Office administration had something to say to the retirement of 657 officials from this Department under Article 10 of the Treaty. It had nothing whatever to say to the retirement of these officials. Immediately after the Treaty, practically every one of these applicants for retirement availed of that opportunity—at least gave an intimation of their intention to retire. That decision on their part was come to at a time when they could not have anticipated either good or bad treatment at the hands of the Department. The fact is that a big number of the civil servants were nearing the normal age of retirement and the Treaty Article gave them an opportunity of adding some years to their term of service that would not ordinarily have been included. Besides that, there were at the time a great many people who concluded that the advantage of a substantial pension would make them very much better off in the outside world, seeing that a lot of people thought in the years 1921 and 1922 that we were likely to be in for a kind of El Dorado. That did not materialise. Nevertheless, that was the viewpoint and they concluded that the addition of a pension would simply make them. It has not worked out that way. Many people who went out on pension, and availed of Article 10 of the Treaty, would be very glad to get back again. They now find that they made a serious mistake. That is their own look out. My Department resisted, as far as possible, the extension of the provisions of Article 10 to anyone. We could not see that men who denied that they were Nationalists, had any justification, or that there was any truth in the contention, that they could not serve a native Government. We never believed that story, and we did our best to prevent the extension of the provisions of Article 10 to the overwhelming majority of those people.
Deputy McCullough and a number of other Deputies urged that we should either discontinue the collection of the sixpenny tax on parcels or introduce some kind of clearing house scheme, which would facilitate business people. I take it that the Deputies who spoke on this point were mainly concerned with business people. Very few have sympathy with those who avail of the advertisements in English newspapers to buy articles on the other side, instead of buying them at home. I certainly have very little sympathy with that class of trade, considering that the finances of our Exchequer, and the rates of the country and employment in the country are dependent, to no small extent, on the business that these shopkeepers do. We have a certain amount of sympathy, no doubt, with the shopkeeper who is put to a good deal of inconvenience in these daily collections. If the shopkeepers, or the business people, can see any way by which the charge may be reduced or its collection facilitated, a suggestion from them will be sympathetically considered. I cannot promise more, because on a matter of this kind I am bound up by the regulations of the Ministry of Finance. Certainly, I am prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any proposals that may come from business people. The imposition of this tax has been a useful one to the traders of this country. They are now realising that fact. At first they jumped to the conclusion that it would be of no assistance and give a good deal of trouble. In the interval, the number of incoming parcels annually dropped from 2,900,000 to close on 2,000,000—or a drop of nearly one-third in the space of twelve months. The former import of these parcels was 3,000,000 and the export one million, leaving a margin of 2,000,000 parcels in favour of the exporter on the English side. We had to deliver those 2,000,000 excess parcels. We had practically nothing for the work, except a sum of threepence per parcel for delivery and everybody will agree that threepence would not go any distance in meeting the expense of delivery. The delivery tax of sixpence enables us to go a long way to meet the deficit suffered from the excess import. It has not entirely met it, but it has increased our revenue by £50,000, and it has deflected a considerable trade to Irish shopkeepers, the volume of which can be measured in terms of one million parcels.
These two facts are sufficient justification for the introduction of that charge of 6d. When we have arrived at the stage that the incoming and outgoing parcels balance each other, we may consider whether it will not be possible to remove the collection altogether. If we arrived at such a balance of outgoing and incoming parcels, the removal of the charge could be reasonably considered. I gave that promise at the introduction of this charge, and I have not departed from it.
Deputy Heffernan referred to party-lines for rural telephones. There was no necessity to remind us of the importance of party lines from the standpoint of economy. You cannot have an extensive extension of telephones in rural parts, because of the expense of individual installations. You can do it only through the party line system.
We find it very difficult on this side of the House to hear the Minister.
I cannot speak more loudly.
Perhaps the Minister will try to speak more loudly.
The fault is not on our part. We had not the same complaint to make of any other Minister.
I can assure Deputy Heffernan that the party system, from the point of view of expense, will be fully availed of on every opportunity, now that we are arriving at the stage when we should be able to extend 'phones into farmers' houses. The Deputy also mentioned the hardship suffered by country people through the withdrawal of bank holiday deliveries. That withdrawal was not initiated in our time. It existed long before our time, and if we were to reintroduce deliveries on those days it would cost the tidy sum of £10,000. I ask the Dáil whether we would be justified in letting loose a whole army of postmen through the country on bank holidays for the delivery of a letter or two in some districts. I do not think we would. In rural England, with all their money, they have not thought that an extension of this kind was justified.
Might I ask how the £10,000 would be incurred? Would that be by way of extra pay?
Yes.
Because it is a bank holiday?
Yes. We are always glad to get suggestions for the running of a Department of this kind. When a useful suggestion is made, it is taken up and developed as far as possible. For that reason, I am glad that several Deputies suggested the introduction of the "zone" system for parcels and letters. Without very careful examination, we cannot say whether the "zone" system would be practicable or not, but we will promise to examine it.
Deputy Cooper urged a direct exchange of parcels with France, because of the new silk and other import duties in England. These duties do not affect our trade with France in any way. Our parcels come direct and untouched. In any case, our means of direct communication with that country are too restricted to enable us to concentrate on a parcels business there. Comparisons were made with the more general delivery of letters in Switzerland. We give here—with the exception of a few rural areas—one delivery per day. In a great many towns we give two deliveries and in certain cities we give three deliveries. My own opinion is that in no case should we give more than one delivery to a private house. Any additional number, I believe, is superfluous and a loss of public money. In a number of cases we are giving a second delivery, but whether that second delivery will be wiped out or not I cannot say. Certainly we have no intention of increasing it. It is easy to make comparisons with foreign countries. Switzerland is a large hotel. We are in a very different position. The Swiss people must necessarily spend money in this particular way to get money. We have no intention, at the moment, of making any increase in our deliveries. I believe that this money can be better spent otherwise, and we cannot have deliveries without expenditure of public moneys.
Deputy Heffernan, I think, referred to the increase of expenditure on the headquarters staff by £8,125. Five thousand pounds of this increase is due to increased cost-of-living bonus. The balance is accounted for by ordinary increments. Our headquarters staffs are, in the main, composed of new men consequent on retirements due to Article 10. Their salaries increase from year to year. There is no undue expense incurred in connection with our headquarters, but we find it necessary to keep headquarters strong. We find it is good business. Expenditure at the head is very often expenditure in the right direction. At any rate, we have found it to be so. Deputy Johnson seems to be somewhat alarmed at the proposal that we should part with any of our factory operations——
Profitable factory operations.
During the debate on the Shannon Bill somebody—I think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce—referred to the possibility of some big electrical manufacturing company getting going in this country. In the last year, according to a booklet dealing with trade and shipping statistics, the amount of money sent out of this country for electrical goods reached the formidable figure of £400,000. With the Shannon scheme, and with a growing development in telephones, that figure will be materially augmented in the next three or four years, and it may, perhaps, be doubled. Clearly, there is room here for an electrical industry. Whether it should be run by the State or by private enterprise is a matter on which people hold different views. In either event, it will mean a big expenditure, a very big expenditure, of initial capital.
I do not think that the State ought to embark on a great electrical industry. I do not think it would be able to handle it as effectively as, let us say, some English or foreign electrical people. I cannot conceive how it could. I would be very glad to be told how; but I am not satisfied that we could. At the same time, I am satisfied that we ought to encourage the setting up of an electrical industry. There is really too much money being sent out of this country in this respect. In any case, it is a key industry and we cannot get on without key industries. If a foreign industry is started here, one of the initial requirements will be that the Post Office work, the total Post Office electrical work, outside the area of repairs, should be its monopoly within reasonable prices.
Will the Minister say what would happen supposing two or three such firms start this business? To which of them will he hand over the business?
It will be a matter of the lowest price.
The lowest?
I am pretty sure, at any rate, that no foreign industry will start here if the Government intends to maintain a rival factory. I do not think it would be justified, from its own viewpoint. Now, there is just one other point that I have to refer to. During the last week I have had a number of discussions with the Minister for Finance on the question of broadcasting. The Minister has agreed to my proposal to run broadcasting by the State. It is intended to erect a main station at Dublin and a subsidiary station at Cork. At a later stage this plant will, no doubt, be supplemented. For the present it is intended to confine ourselves to those two stations. The cost of the main station and the substation—the laying down cost—will, we estimate, reach the figure of £9,000. We anticipate that the mechanical upkeep and the cost of programmes will work out at something like £20,000 a year. We believe—though this is a guess and there is nothing to guide us, not very much anyway—that the first year ought to bring about 10,000 subscribers, at £1 per subscriber. This would leave us in the first year with a loss of about £10,000. In the second year it is thought that the number of subscribers ought to reach 15,000, or perhaps somewhat more, and we have concluded that in the third year the station will pay its way.
Is the Minister aware there are 15,000 crystal set users in Belfast city?
Within five years we believe the original loss will be wiped out. Now, there are 20,000 subscribers in the Six Counties. We have endeavoured to ascertain what part of this number is due to the installation of a station there. It will be agreed that the Belfast mind is a little more pro-English than the Dublin mind, and that the development of broadcasting in that city had reached a higher degree at the time of the introduction of the station than has been the case here, where we have had only somewhat over 2,000 people owning up. The number may have been somewhat more.
Can the Minister say how many crystal-set users, who have only a short radius——
There are no crystal sets here.
How many are there in Belfast?
We have not been able to ascertain that. We are inclined to think the number of non-crystal sets were pretty numerous at the time of the introduction of the broadcasting station.
Did the Minister pay a visit there?
Anyhow, we have come to the conclusion that these figures which I have quoted fairly well represent the position. Everybody knows you can quote different figures, but you have nothing to support them. At the best, it is a calculation only—a guess. In the course of the debate information was sought regarding the statistical tax authority. Deputy Cooper desired to know whether we had any authority for the introduction of this tax in the first instance. At the time I stated that the Dáil was notified in the previous Estimates that this tax would be introduced. Anybody who takes the trouble to refer to my statement on that occasion will see that it was very definite. I said, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance—an approval which I anticipated securing—that the tax of 6d. on parcels would be introduced at a certain date.
I propose moving under Standing Order 93 for a reconsideration of this Vote for a certain reason which I propose to set out, very largely following on the statement that the Minister has just made, but largely owing to the very nature of the Vote that we have before us. I suggest to the Dáil that it is quite impossible for the Dáil to give the consideration that a Vote of this kind requires with only one side of the Department's balance sheet before it. We have got before us here the Estimates. I have not intervened in this debate before because I was waiting to get hold of the official report of the Minister's speech in introducing this Vote last Thursday. I have gone through that speech, and I still fail to find in it any statement of some of the essential figures representing the revenue side of the balance sheet. All we have got before us in this Estimate is the expenditure side of the balance sheet. I will touch upon this more fully later on. The Minister has already mentioned certain important decisions which he has taken. He has intimated other decisions that he probably will, or may, take in regard to the delivery of telegrams and the delivery of letters. All these decisions follow upon information at his disposal respecting the balance of revenue as against expenditure.
Those decisions, I suggest, are not Government decisions, under the Constitution. They are the decisions directly of the Minister responsible to the Dáil, and therefore we ought to have this particular service brought before us in a form different from the form that has been adopted for other Departments. It is quite right and perfectly just that the Department of Finance should be brought under the review of the Dáil only in respect to expenditure and in the form of Estimates for expenditure, because there is no revenue on the other hand to balance the matter. It is perfectly correct that the Department of Industry and Commerce, where there is an expenditure but no revenue, should have the expenditure placed before us in the ordinary form of the Estimates. But in the case of the Post Office, I suggest that is not a practicable or a wise course, and particularly that it is an unwise course, having regard to the fact that the Constitution has made this particular Minister who is in charge of the Department so accountable, specifically and deliberately responsible to the Dáil as a whole.
So is every Minister.
Every other Minister is not. The Executive Ministers are responsible to the Dáil under the Constitution through the Executive Council, and in the general corporate responsibility of the Executive Council.
They are responsible to the Dáil.
They are responsible to the Dáil as a body, but they are appointed and nominated by the President himself, and not by the Dáil. These extern Ministers are nominated by the Dáil, and there is a distinction laid down in the Constitution. Apart from that, the Minister for Finance will not deny that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is different from every other Department in this: that its decision should be very largely motived on questions of economy, and these questions of economy cannot be determined until we know not merely what are the outgoings, but also the Dáil should be able to know what the incoming is. I am not entering on a criticism of this particularly. I know this is a form of estimate that the Minister has received. It is one that has been adopted before in the practice of another country, and we have taken it over. I do not say that the Minister should, on this particular occasion, have introduced his estimates in the form I now suggest. If he had done so——
As Deputy Figgis is so keen on constitutional matters I might remind him that it is not the responsibility of the Minister to bring in estimates. It is the responsibility of the Executive Council.
Very well. if it is the responsibility of the Executive Council to bring in estimates in this particular form, that is simply determined by the precedents that have prevailed in this particular case. I suggest now, for the consideration of the Dáil, that these precedents are not applicable to a Department of this kind, where you have not merely an outgoing but an incoming also, and where you have very important decisions, decisions not taken by the Executive Council, but decisions at least taken on the initiative of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
By the Minister for Finance.
If the Minister for Finance is going to conduct a duologue with me I am quite content to conduct it and to go into matters that he and I discussed before. I might remind the Minister for Finance that it was I who stated originally in the Constituent Assembly that the extern Ministers would be simply digits on the hands of the Executive Council, and that it was the Minister who denied that, and said that these Ministers would be separately and individually responsible. If the Minister is now coming round to the point of view I then held I welcome him as a convert, though I am not particularly glad to see it.
In any case, there are various matters that the Dáil is asked to take a decision in regard to. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, last Thursday, informed us that the Department was now losing less than it did at the beginning. The loss has fallen now to £600,000. I want to make it clear that when I ask that future reports (I will not call them estimates) of this particular Department presented to the Dáil, should be presented in a form showing expenditure on the one hand and revenue on the other, I am not going to urge, what I believe Deputy Hewat has already, that no expenditure should be taken outside the revenue. I am not urging that in the least.
Deputy Johnson last year stated— quite correctly in my judgment, at least he expressed my view in so saying —that there are certain losses which might be incurred by a department that would be quite right and proper for that department to incur and that we could not look at the thing strictly from a business standpoint in that respect. We ought to know where that loss occurs and we ought to have that fulness of information before us by which we can detect: "Here is a loss and here is a gain." We ought to be able to decide whether these losses are justified or whether these gains are justified. Take the case that the Minister mentioned to-day—the question of losses on telegrams to which reference has been made. This is what he said last Thursday: "The charges for delivery are not included in the telegraph revenue. They are treated separately. The telegraph revenue for last year"— and he interposed here—"I have not the figures here, because we are not dealing with a section of the revenue; we are dealing with the whole service —amounted to something in the neighbourhood of £200,000. The expenditure exceeded £400,000. It was something like £420,000." Now I suggest that figures of that kind should not only be set out in that form before this Dáil but that the Minister should not say: "I have not the figures here." We ought to have these figures here.
Is the Deputy referring to the expenses of last year and the receipts for last year, or the estimated receipts for the coming year?"
I am referring to the expenses for the previous year. We ought to have them in order that we might be able to determine on them exactly what policy in particular respects the Department would be justified in adopting for the coming year. The Minister made another statement, for example, in regard to the delivery of letters. There have been complaints. Deputies who live in and who may represent Dublin constituencies are frequently getting complaints with regard to the infrequency of deliveries of letters. The Minister stated that he believed that one delivery for each private house per day was all that would be justified, and he intimated that it was possible that he would come to a decision to restrict deliveries in the future to that one delivery. He takes that decision according to the best knowledge available to him in consultation with his officials, just as he takes the decision with regard to the delivery of telegrams in rural areas in consultation with his officials, and takes it according to the best judgment and wisdom that he has. I am not questioning all that in the least; what I am saying is that these are decisions in respect of which the Dáil ought to be consulted, and before the Dáil can be consulted I think the Dáil should have the revenue figures put before it for each closing year, together with the expenditures for that year. This Department is very largely a business Department, and I guard myself there again by saying that when I describe it as a business Department I do not necessarily mean that the expenditure would always be kept down to the revenue; but fundamentally it is a business Department, different in that regard from other Departments, inasmuch as it is a revenue-earning department, and decisions taken should be decisions taken much in the same way as business decisions generally are taken, that is that the particular person, the managing director of the firm, or whoever it may be who has to take the decision, should report and consult with those to whom he is responsible. I suggest that that would not only be desirable from the point of view—I do not say in every little detail, but on broad lines—of the Dáil, and necessary for its consideration of the estimates of the Department when they are laid before the Dáil each year, but that that is just as necessary and just as wise for the Minister to take in his own interest.
I refer to another statement of his last Thursday, where he was dealing with the parcels tax. He said: "A good deal of agitation has gone on for its removal in the interval, but we feel that we would not be justified in making any change. I do not think that this country can afford to be philanthropic in dealing with surplus incoming traffic. We are merely asking these people who get parcels from abroad to pay part of their way." Then he went on to indicate that there had been a very substantial reduction; the figures which he gave were that parcels had dropped from 2,900,000 to 2,000,000. I suggested when he was speaking last Thursday that I would like to have fuller information in regard to that. It has been said to me that items that previously were sent over in separate parcels are now being sent over in larger parcels, that a reduction actually in the number of parcels is occurring, but that the size of the parcels is larger, and that the reduction in the number of parcels is not commensurate with the number of articles that are sent. Deputy Cooper, at the same time, asked if information would be given to the Dáil, not only in regard to parcels but to show the number of items that were sent over by book post. I suggest to the Dáil that in the matter of this 6d. parcels tax, information of that kind is essential to the taking of a decision. The Dáil took a decision to adopt this parcels delivery tax, and now when we come to the end of the first year of its working I suggest that information of this kind ought to be in the possession of Deputies in order that Deputies might be able to know whether not merely the parcels are dropping but, on the broader aspect of it, that the tax is justifying itself. If I may revert again to the expenditure on letter deliveries, the Minister stated in regard to the reduction in the number of deliveries per day in different districts: "The expenditure under this head is expenditure in the right direction." That may be, but it would be much better for the Dáil if it had before it the figures on the one hand and the figures on the other, so that the Dáil might be able to know whether the expenditure is justifiable expenditure or not, as it cannot take the cost of telegrams, or parcels, or letters, or any of the branches of this service, until it has in its possession information on both sides of the balance sheet. I wish to add this, that the Estimates that are put before us are drawn out in very great and commendable detail. So far as the expenditure is concerned the detail is far ampler and far more complete than for any other Department. But the Minister did himself recognise the substance of the case that I am making. I think it was last year—it might have been the year before, perhaps both years, but one of these two years in any case—before we came to the consideration of the Vote for the Ministry of Post and Telegraphs, Deputies were provided with a very full, a very satisfactory statement by the Minister as to the working of the Department, and it proved of the very greatest possible help and convenience to Deputies in discussing the expenditure that the Dáil was asked to sanction. That practice might have been continued this year. I am urging that that practice should be continued in future, not merely that an innovation should be made——
I think it was. I spoke for an hour and twenty minutes in making my preliminary statement. I suggest that that was a justification of the promise I gave. The Deputy may not have been here.
Is the Minister referring to last Thursday?
Yes.
I was here. I listened to it and I waited to read it when I got a copy of it this morning. But it does not set it out in that form which he gave us, either last year or the year before, and I suggest it is desirable that we should receive it in that form, that obviously when you have a Department that is receiving revenue as well as incurring expenditure we ought to be able to have each side of the balance sheet before we undertake the determination of the particular heads of expenditure for the future, when these particular heads of expenditure involve very important matters determining policy.
We are all children of inconsistency, and I wish to call attention to a little inconsistency on the part of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He is a standard bearer of protection; no one in the country is such a standard bearer in the cause of protection; and it rather comes as a shock to me when I open the envelope of a telegram and see an advertisement for Beecham's pills, or some tonic from across the water. I am not a protectionist, but I am inclined to throw away the telegram when that happens, until it strikes me that I have paid sixpence to the Minister for this piece of paper advertising a foreign nostrum, or a foreign tonic. I think that the Minister ought to give very serious attention to this. Probably he counts it as one of the revenues which help to meet the enormous expenditure on the Post Office. However, even though it may bring in a considerable amount of revenue, I hope that it will not be continued, that no foreign nostrum or commodity of any description will be advertised by any Government Department. Furthermore, I wish to have the postal communications worked more expeditiously than they are at the present moment. It is a rather curious procedure to have the postal matter from several towns in Mayo brought up to Roscommon, Athlone or Ballmasloe and then sent back the following day to the towns to which they are addressed. This also requires some attention. If the office expenditure would not allow this to be remedied I hope, notwithstanding the great loss coming from stoppage of advertisements of foreign matter, that the Minister will pay attention to that matter.
I am not going to enter into a discussion with regard to advertisements, say of Beecham's pills, on the back of telegram forms. I am not going to deal with that at all. I want to approach this question and to prove logically that the attitude of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with respect to this item of telegrams is wrong and unjust. I want to put it up to the members of the Dáil that it is unjust, and I want later on to have, by a vote, a clear opinion given here by them as to what their view is with regard to the conduct of this service. The Minister, on Thursday last, told us that his actions were based on the action of the Dáil, and that the Dáil would not do this or that. Therefore he has put it up to every member of the Dáil to consider what they think is right or wrong with respect to this policy. While I am on this I may refer to a speech of Deputy Good, delivered here on Friday last. Deputy Good said, when referring to this telegram service:—
The telegraphic service is, I am afraid, more than any other of the postal services what we might call an abused service. It is used very largely, as was pointed out, for betting and other purposes that cannot by any means be looked upon as national assets. To withdraw charges about which complains have been made would mean that the service would be more largely used for these particular purposes, and that larger use would create very much larger losses.
I want you to take particular note of this, because he referred to the charge for delivery outside a certain radius.
Deputy Heffernan pointed out that it costs 1s. 6d. to deliver a telegram a distance of four miles from a post office. His idea appeared to be, and I think to some extent it is Deputy Johnson's, although he did not express it very clearly, that there should be a flat rate for telegrams. The Deputy advanced in the argument he put forward a little along that road, but he did not go quite as far as Deputy Heffernan. We know that in the West there are places eight, ten or fifteen miles from a post office. In many cases the telegraph service is made use of for purposes that could be dealt with by ordinary letter post.
There were some other references I am not able to trace, but from the one I am able to trace I can adduce an abuse of this particular service, and this particular abuse is connected with betting telegrams. He stated that this abuse is connected with betting telegrams. He stated that this abuse is attributable more to the rural population than to anyone else. I venture to suggest that not one out of one thousand telegrams in connection with betting have been sent from rural areas. It is quite true that telegrams are sent by residents in rural areas, but those residents go to a telegraph office to send them. Thus there is no extra cost to the State and these are received by Deputy Hewat's constituents, by the people who are living within his magic circle and are given free delivery. If any telegrams are sent back it is between the recipient and his agents in towns and villages who are living also within this free delivery circle. Deputy Good wanted to make out by implication that the abuse of those messages was confined to the rural population alone. I say it is not. I say it is a libel on the rural population. There is no extra cost incurred by your rural population in respect to this, because when a man wants to send to a bookmaker he goes to the telegraph office and delivers his telegram. I am sorry Deputy Good is not here. He might have a little more to say on this.
Now we come to deal with the charges for this particular service. The Minister said to-day that £40,000 has been collected last year or the year before for the charges of this particular service for the rural areas.
Last year.
He said also that it was not quite so much this year.
We do not anticipate that it will be.
We will be quite safe in taking £41,000 as a conservative figure. It is not as much this year. There is a total loss on the service of £220,000 or about one quarter of a million. The charge for extra delivery to the country is £41,000. We have not the figures Deputy Figgis asked for but those figures give us something to go on with. Adopting a very conservative attitude with regard to what those services are, let us say there is only a charge of 1/- for each telegram. I know in a considerable amount of instances it comes up to 2/6, especially to creameries. I can name three of them in my own constituency, so that the smallest average is 1/- for each delivery. That will give you the amount of telegrams delivered in rural areas. If there is a loss of 1/- on each telegram it is represented in £220,000. Therefore delivery outside the mile limit would stand in the ratio of 41 to 220.
Something like 5½ telegrams are despatched within the mile radius to one despatched outside. In that way again we get a very fair idea of the number of telegrams despatched and where they are delivered. Everybody who receives a telegram contributes to this loss of £220,000. The Minister puts the loss at one shilling for each telegram. According to the figures I have given, evidently every person living outside the mile radius who receives a telegram almost pays for the entire cost—he certainly pays the extra shilling. £220,000 less £41,000 is the total loss within the mile radius, because most of our population, especially the business population, live within the mile radius. I should like to have authoritative figures from the Minister as to the number of telegrams delivered both inside and outside the mile radius and the two mile radius. Until we get these figures we can only arrive at an approximate calculation. But if you take one shilling as the average charge for delivery, it is easy to arrive at the number of telegrams delivered outside the mile radius. I want to know why people resident outside the mile radius should be asked to make good £41,000 while those inside get off scot free, and the State has to make up for a loss of £180,000 for the service within the mile radius. I should like to hear the Minister answering those figures. I feel sure that the Minister, as well as the Minister for Finance and the President, are broadminded enough not to look at the matter from the point of view of individuals, but from the point of view of the State and the right of every citizen.
It might be better if I corrected a few of the Deputy's figures. He appears to be getting rather deeply into trouble.
I would wish to be corrected if I can be corrected.
I made it clear at the outset that the porterage charges for telegrams are not included one way or the other in the loss on the telegraph service. The loss on the telegraph service is about £220,000, not £180,000. The second point is this: the person who contributes to the porterage of a telegram also receives the advantage of the first mile free, the same as the person who lives within the mile radius.
I was only trying to prove the number of telegrams.
That makes a big difference. The person outside the mile radius gets precisely the same advantage from the State contribution as the person inside. Therefore, the Deputy has no case.
The Minister has proved his contention to his own satisfaction evidently, but he has not proved it to the satisfaction of anybody else. If he is able to dispute my figures, that £41,000 represents the total for telegrams delivered outside the mile area, I am prepared to admit that my case does not hold water. If he is prepared to prove by figures that more than 41,000 telegrams, or an appreciable number that affects the total, are delivered outside the mile area, I am prepared to accept these figures.
It is not 41,000 telegrams, but £41,000.
I mean the number of telegrams represented by £41,000. If the Minister's argument is good with regard to the £41,000 it is also good with regard to the £220,000. If £41,000 is received from telegrams delivered outside the mile area, I want to ask the Minister if that sum does not represent the telegrams delivered outside that radius to the extent of a shilling per telegram— 41,000 multiplied by 20.
I am aware that in the rural areas— this may interest Deputy Johnson; probably he knows it already—telegraph messengers are retained as part-time employees at a very small salary. I know of such messengers being paid 5s. per week for part time. In exceptional cases I believe they receive 10s. The general rule is to allow the sub-Postmaster or sub-Postmistress so much for a telegraph messenger. I would be very much surprised if these messengers are paid more than ten shillings per week for part-time work. Such a messenger, paid five shillings a week, would collect at least ten shillings per week in extra charges for delivery. Therefore, the postal service makes 100 per cent. profit. I know of a postal district where the messenger is getting ten shillings per week for part-time work. For delivering telegrams to my house he would receive the whole of that ten shillings, and more, in extra charges for delivery. I have often paid fifteen shillings within a week for delivery, and as much as twenty shillings. Therefore, I paid 100 per cent. more than the boy costs the post office, not to speak of what he is paid for extra charges by other people. He is doing the whole work of that district, both inside and outside the mile radius, for less than he is paid in extra charges for delivery.
I want to discuss the question in a reasonable way. I do not want to approach it from a hostile, personal, or party point of view. I am sure the Minister is as open as I am to discuss it reasonably and with sense and justice. I have very grave doubts if the Minister is not leaving himself open to an action at law by adopting this system. The Constitution, which we hear so much about, guarantees equal rights for all citizens. Where is the equality in this system? It would be just as reasonable to tell me that because I live outside the mile radius I am not entitled to equal service in respect to the Civic Guards, the Army, or any other service, as the man living inside the mile radius. If that is carried to its logical conclusion I would be entitled to reply that if because I live in a rural district I am not entitled to certain State services, therefore I should not be liable for State charges. That argument is as defensible as the other.
Twelve months ago I asked that a Commission should be set up to inquire into this matter. That request was refused. I ask again that a Commission should be set up to inquire into it. Perhaps the Minister and certain Deputies feel that as a result of the recent elections they have the absolute confidence of the country and can do what they like. It is up to Deputies representing rural areas, as the Minister stated on Thursday last, to decide whether the present policy is right or wrong. The Minister very fairly stated that it was the Dáil decided this matter. I ask Deputies from the rural areas: are they prepared to stand for discrimination as to who is to get a free service or who is not? Is the population living outside the mile radius to make good the £41,000 of a loss while those who live inside the mile area, on which the State is losing £180,000 are to be let off scot free, because they happen to be a majority of the population? It may be that the estimable services of these Deputies will weigh more with their constituents than their support of what I call the robbery that is perpetrated by this system in rural areas.
I know creameries that in the ordinary course of business receive from five to ten telegrams every day on which there is a charge of 2/6. I met two people who are connected with creameries on Monday last and both of them mentioned this matter to me. They are supporters of the Government and were present at the recent convention at which the economic policy of the Government was discussed. One of the creameries is at Muckalee, and Mr. Conway, whose name I may mention, stated that 2/6 was paid on every telegram received. At Mountgale and Ballybur creameries 2/6 is also paid for each telegram received. That may be good business from the point of view of trying to make good the loss of £41,000 and also in order to give good service to Deputy Hewat and Deputy Good who live within the charmed circle at Carrickmines, Foxrock, etc.
I heard Deputy Daly say a few days ago that he was perfectly satisfied with the present state of affairs. Of course he is. Deputy Daly's telegrams are delivered free, and of course he thinks of no one outside the mile area. He stated that the service was a tribute to Cork and that it was only a Corkman could do what had been done. I think it is only Corkmen could do so. They can do more than that. We had some historical books written by Corkmen recently. Perhaps they dealt with facts, but perhaps it would be as well if more attention was paid to the Post Office and less to books. The attitude adopted by Deputy Good and Deputy Daly make the people of the Saorstát desperate. The people outside think that they should not be placed on a different plane to the people inside the mile radius. I have a good deal more to say about this Vote, but I would not be able to conclude in the time at my disposal.
Deputy Figgis desires that a balance sheet should be produced on the presentation of this Vote. That is impossible; it is certainly impossible for the previous financial year. At the highest working speed it would take six months to clear up home and foreign accounts. Even with British experience that has not been improved upon. The system has been to present commercial accounts within twelve months or thereabouts after the termination of the financial year. Commercial accounts for 1922-23 are ready and will come before the Public Accounts Committee one of these days.
For 1923-24?
I do not think the Committee has yet considered those for 1922-23. The 1923-24 accounts are ready and will follow on. It would give us great pleasure to come here annually and present a balance sheet for the past year and an Estimate for the present year. I am sorry that is not possible. It is my desire to give the greatest possible information to every Deputy. It would save a valuable lot of time here, which is, I think, our mutual desire. If I can expedite the introduction of this balance sheet for this service I assure the Dáil that I will do so. I have considered it many a time.
Would it not be possible for the Minister to present, as has been done in the case of some private firms, a provisional balance sheet? Some of the accounts are closed and it is only a few covering remote matters that are not closed. Those not closed could be so indicated.
I am afraid that would be only partially successful. The number of items not closed is greater than the Deputy is aware of, as we are doing business with an increasing number of foreign countries. It takes time to close these accounts, so that to present a partial balance sheet would not be satisfactory and would lead nowhere.
In his statement the Minister gave a number of figures in respect of a saving on charges on postal orders.
At any rate, I do not think we could give a satisfactory balance sheet. It would be a great pleasure to do so if we could discover the means by which it could be done. No one would be more pleased than I would be. I do not think there are any other points to which I have not replied already.
I think I said something that the Minister might reply to. I want to know if the Minister cannot or will not reply.
I have already fully replied to this point, not only last year but also this year, and there is nothing new that I could say about it. As a matter of fact, an ample reply was already given by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Cooper, and I merely supplement it.
I am quite aware that Deputy Good made certain statements here, and it, perhaps, clears the air when we see the Minister hiding under Deputy Good's wing, and adopting his reasons and policy. I have, however, yet to learn that Deputy Johnson favours Deputy Good's argument or the Minister's policy. If he does favour it, I would like to hear him say so, and if he does not, the Minister has maligned Deputy Johnson. A vote will be taken on this question very soon, and the only way that I think I can have a vote on this is to propose that the Estimate be referred back for consideration, as we do not approve of the Minister's policy in that connection. I, therefore, propose that it be referred back.
That motion would be proper in the opening discussion, but we have now entered on a discussion of the Estimate under sub-head (a).
With all respect, I do not think we have. We are discussing general policy.
We are discussing the Minister's salary under sub-head (a).
On sub-head (a) I think I am within my right in proposing that the Vote be referred back.
It would be in order to propose a reduction of less than £1,000.
It is a question of Standing Orders.
Surely you cannot move a reduction of the Minister's salary, because that is not allowed. We have adopted Standing Order 93 because that was not possible here.
Under sub-head (a) you can move a reduction, but it must be less than £1,000, for Deputy Johnson moved an amendment reducing the Vote by £1,000 on Friday.
If my memory serves me right we have not entered into a discussion of sub-head (a). We are discussing the main question.
There has been a motion moved for a reduction of £1,000. Obviously, when that was rejected, there may be a case for a reduction of a lesser sum. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is accommodating Deputy Gorey by suggesting a lesser sum. I would submit that having refused to reduce the Estimate by £1,000 there is a prima facie case that the Dáil has accepted the Estimate in so far as it would not reduce the Vote by £1,000. If there is no case for a reduction of £1,000, I submit that it would not be fair to ask the Dáil to refer the whole Estimate back.
That does not follow after the vote taken on the last day. It was a vote taken when there were only a few Deputies here. This is a different matter, and I submit I am entitled to move to refer the matter back.
On a point of procedure, I submit that there is a possibility of referring the Vote back for reconsideration, not necessarily with a view to reduction, but, possibly, with a view to increase. The question of referring back does not necessarily entail a reduction in the Estimate.
This is the same point which I want to make. I do not want the Vote to be reduced, but I want the Government to consider the possibility of adjusting this Estimate. I do not take it as a reflection on the Minister, or the Government, but I want to move that it be referred back for reconsideration.
I cannot accept the motion, as it was not made in the earlier part of the discussion. I will accept a motion for a reduction by a less sum than £1,000.
That is putting us in a false position, as we do not want to take a vote on this particular item but on the question of policy. I submit that we are not being treated fairly in this matter, nor is the Dáil being treated fairly.
I think that Deputy Gorey will admit that sending back an Estimate is really submitting that the Dáil does not approve of policy. The question of policy is a bigger one than a reduction of £1,000, and the bigger thing should be taken first in all fairness to the Minister, to the Government, and to the Dáil. We have now entered on the third day's consideration of this Estimate. Taking into consideration its size, it has taken up in the matter of time much more than any other Estimate. To send it back now after a vote has been taken for a further reduction would, I think, be a reversal of the procedure we have adopted.
I hold a different view. I hold that when the main question is under discussion any Deputy has a right to move any amendment he thinks fit. I do not think that it can be held to be fair to the Dáil, because one Deputy thinks well to move a certain amendment carrying a certain amount of money, that it excludes another Deputy from putting another proposition. I think that a good case has been made for reconsideration by the Government of this Vote, and that they might very well consider it now and not next year.
I submit that Standing Order No. 93 was apparently framed with a view to regulating how these matters should be dealt with. It says: "It shall be in order, before entering on the discussion of the items in a Vote, to move that the Estimate in question be referred back to the Minister in charge of the Department for reconsideration." There was in mind there what the procedure should be on matters of the sort. I submit that having allowed the items to be discussed, almost every detail in the Estimate, and having disposed of an amendment to reduce the Vote by £1,000, to move now that the Estimate be sent back is in contravention of the terms and spirit of the Standing Order.
In that case I accept the explanation, and I accept the ruling of An Leas-Cheann Comhairle in accordance with the President's viewpoint. Therefore, I move that a smaller sum, a sum that will not affect the Vote, because I do not want to hamper the Ministry or to hamper the service in any form, be taken off the Estimate. I propose an insignificant amount, so that the Minister will not be hampered. In order that Deputies listening to me, and they are very few, can be given an opportunity of a clear vote, I propose that the whole Vote be reduced by £100.
Is it under sub-head (a)?
Yes, or under whatever sub-head you like. The President has said I cannot move that the total vote be referred back for a greater amount than £1,000. I am selecting a lesser amount. Therefore, I am in order in moving a reduction of £100 in the total vote.
Under sub-head (a)?
Make it in whatever legal form you like. I am not good at that. In moving this amendment I want a clear vote of the Dáil on this question. The Minister has said that it is not his policy, but the policy of the Dáil. Therefore the policy that is to be decided is the policy of every member of the Dáil. The man who is satisfied with the particular policy as it is should vote against this reduction. That will not really affect the total vote, or the carrying on of the business of the Department, but it is well we should distinctly know what is the attitude of Deputies, especially rural Deputies in this matter. Whatever decision is taken will be their responsibility and not the Ministers', and whatever they do in this matter should be done without hiding behind any party pledge, or being bound by a certain undertaking when elected.
We take it if there is a division that all the Deputies will be in the same position with regard to this amendment as they were the other evening on the occasion of an amendment to the Fisheries Bill, that is that every Deputy will be free to decide against the Minister if he thinks fit to do so. We assume that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will not place, or seek to place, any Deputy either in his own party or any other party, in a more unfair position than they would be if this were an amendment to the Fisheries Bill, such as I have already referred to, and that if the Minister's policy is not acceptable Deputies will be free to give an open declaration of that fact.
I put it to the Minister that perhaps he sees reasons from the point of view expressed by Deputy Gorey why his own policy ought to be reconsidered. If the Minister recognises that the rural inhabitants have not been treated fairly, and that he is prepared to look into the position and to reconsider the policy that has been pursued by him so far in the light of the case put before him by Deputy Gorey, I think if he is prepared to say he will do that, and will do it honestly, that Deputy Gorey will have achieved the end he seeks to attain.
If the Minister says bluntly that he is not going to do that, but that he will make the rural inhabitant contribute more than his fair proportion as a citizen of the State towards the running and the losses of the Post Office, and that he is to pay an extra charge for facilities afforded by the operations of the postal service, naturally the rural inhabitants must take exception to that. Their representatives here now may not be able to pass a sentence on the Minister that would be satisfactory to them, and may not be able to achieve what they wish, but the fact remains that the treatment of the rural inhabitants is not fair and just as compared with that accorded to those in the towns and cities. That is a policy that can be pursued too far. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs ought to take into account that the collector of taxes will not discriminate between the man living on a hillside and the man living in a town. When it comes to paying up they are treated alike, and if the State comes along to perform any service for the citizens, the man in the country, one and a half miles from the town, should not be expected to contribute more to the maintenance of that service than the man living in the town, when the taxpayers as a whole are bearing the burden of that service. That is the attitude we take up. If the Minister says he is going to carry on that policy, and that he is not going to permit the holding of an inquiry into the whole position, into the administration of the Post Office—if that is to be his policy, and not the open policy of the Dáil, we have to accept it, but the Minister ought to recognise that he has a duty to the Dáil and to the rural inhabitants, and to the people in Athy, to whom he was talking the other day, as to the citizens in Cork city.
We have been invited to leave this to open vote. What are we going to get in return? Is it going to be an open vote on the Farmers' benches?
Yes.
On the Labour benches, and on the Independent benches? And if it is to be an open vote what are we going to get? Deputies, in asking for an open vote, are going to invite people who represent rural areas to vote against us in this. That is one of the most cordial and praiseworthy invitations I have ever received. I am personally in the same position as Deputies on the Farmers' benches, and so far as Deputies on the Labour benches are concerned. I am 400 yards outside the limit and am therefore deprived of whatever advantages there are within the mile limit.
Have you a 'phone installed?
Yes.
At what cost?
I do not know.
You paid the ordinary rate of the cost of installing in the city?
As a matter of fact, it was put in four or five years ago, but I have no recollection of the disbursements made.
Would you tell us the annual rent you pay for it?
About £3 or £4 a quarter, I believe. On one occasion I paid twice, and the Postmaster-General very honestly told me he would place the second payment to my credit.
Would the President be surprised to know in regard to this matter that an official letter was sent out by the Postal authorities to a citizen near Dublin saying in effect that they would consider his application for a 'phone if he was prepared to pay a rental of £30 a year, and that he should give a five years' guarantee?
I can understand something like that arising. In some cases it may happen that a particular switchboard is full, and that means that another board has to be put in. They may not be able to get another customer in that direction, and therefore the installation is occasioned by reason of a single application. In that case, is it right that in order to convenience one particular person the whole cost——
In order to end all this it would be well to have the position stated. This telephone service has been held out to the public as a great boon, and I want the public to know what the exact position is. It is going to mean a charge of £30 a year with a five years' guarantee. I do not know where the boon to the public comes in there.
There are special circumstances in connection with particular applications which impose extra costs on the Post Office and which, I think, ought to fall on the person occasioning them. I know that in a particular case—I cannot remember whether it was my own or not, but I believe it was—I had to pay something more by reason of the fact that the "board" was full. I was outside this line, and if I were to take this in a personal way I suppose I should vote with the Deputy. On the occasion of an entertainment given by my wife, five people from the country, who were unable to attend, sent telegrams which cost her one shilling each. I think, if people want this sort of convenience, they have got to pay for it.
This is an Estimate for a total sum of £2,551,540. In a sense it is unfair to ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to allow this to be an open vote, after having agreed with the Minister for Finance—in this case the Minister for Finance is the Executive Council— that this is the amount of money that is to be found in respect of this service. It becomes a Government matter so far as that is concerned. Of course that does not prevent the Minister from examining the service. He has examined it during the last two or three years to see where economies could be effected and to see where an uneconomic branch of the service could be made economic.
In the case of the telephone service, anyone who has been accustomed to using it during the last four or five years will, I think, admit, and generously admit, that there has been an enormous improvement in it. I think it is due to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that reference should be made to that improvement. It is one of the services that has been remedied. At one time I thought it would be necessary to call in an expert from some other country to see how its defects could be remedied. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, with the officials in his Department, took the matter in hand, and the result is, as I have said, that there has been an enormous improvement in this service. As regards the particular service to which Deputy Gorey refers, it is an expensive one, and I have no doubt that the Minister will consider it, but he cannot consider it in the light of a loss of £40,000 to the State.
What about the loss of the £180,000 to the State?
This particular thing would mean a loss of £40,000. As far as the £180,000 is concerned, that deals with a much larger number than the proportionate number involved in the £40,000. Deputy Gorey is engaged in farming and he knows that if he has to send to a fair ten miles away to buy one particular animal that the cost to him in respect of the purchase of that particular animal will be relatively greater than if he had to buy 40 cattle. The same number of men could as easily take the 40 cattle on the single journey as they could the one beast, so that the cost of the transport is relatively greater in the case of the purchase of the one animal than it would be in that of the purchase of the 40. I am sure the Deputy will admit that.
No, I will not.
If Deputy Gorey will not admit it, then I think that the smile on Deputy Baxter's face convinces me that he admits it.
Question?
That is the question: large business and small profits, small business and extra expense. We all know that establishment charges are high against the small business and that they are relatively lower in the case of large undertakings. There are many business concerns all over the country which could turn over three or four times the amount of money they do without incurring any extra establishment charges, for the lower the turn over is the higher proportionately the establishment charges are. That is the position of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. As far as I am concerned, I am against this reduction and I think that the Minister has made a fairly good case for the retention of the charges until the service becomes a more economic one.
The President's usual smoke screen has been emitted. He has cleverly tried to cloud the issue. I think that Deputy Gorey has not made clear what his desire is in this matter. If he is contending that there should be no extra charge at all for the delivery of telegrams, no matter what the distance is from the telegraph office, then I am against him. The practice of making a delivery charge is not a new one. Last year this matter was discussed. It was then pointed out that a reduction had been made in the distance, and that for over a mile from the office there would be no delivery fee charged. I think it is necessary, under present circumstances, that a delivery fee should be charged after a certain distance. Otherwise, the cost of delivery would be very excessive, indeed. I think that limit has to be fixed more or less on the judgment of the Minister. A compromise is inevitable there, I suppose, as to what would be strict justice. I think, however, that a free delivery area of one mile from the telegraph office is altogether too short.
Cities, as Deputy Gorey pointed out, are undoubtedly specially well served in this matter. In the city area you have free delivery within a distance of two miles, but from the office in the small town free delivery is limited to a distance of one mile. That, I think, is an unfair proposition. The zone which Deputy Heffernan suggested as worthy of consideration is too narrow in the case of the delivery of telegrams. I think that the Minister ought to have given further consideration and more sympathetic consideration to the proposal to extend the free delivery area.
I am prepared to support the motion, which aims at impressing on the Minister the view of the House that there should be an extension of the free delivery area. Such an extension will not cost £40,000. We have no estimate as to what it will cost. It possibly may cost £10,000, but I am inclined to the view, inasmuch as the telegraph service as a whole is looked upon as an expense and as a loss to the Treasury, that the extra charge for an extended delivery area could be met by an increase in the cost of the telegrams. The number of persons within the free delivery area ought to be increased, and it is on that account that I feel that the Deputy is justified in asking the views of members of the Dáil to be expressed on this matter. The only way it can be expressed apparently is by requesting a reduction in the Vote. There is no implication in the carrying of this motion, other than that it is the view of the Dáil that the free delivery area should be increased, leaving it to the Minister to decide the extent of that increase. I think I am expressing the views of Deputies on the Farmers' benches. If I am not, and if they are contending that there should be a free delivery any distance, then I would be obliged to vote against this, but if they are contending for an extension of the free delivery area, and that the vote will be simply to prove to the Minister that that is the wish of the Dáil, then I shall certainly vote in favour of this amendment.
Whatever the President does he does not generally miss the psychological point, but he missed it in this case. He does not realise the irritation caused by a charge over which you have no control. You cannot prevent people sending you telegrams. The President, as he told us himself, could not prevent five people sending him telegrams. You can only refuse to accept the telegrams. But human nature and human curiosity are too strong for that. A telegram may contain vital matter or it may only contain the name of a winner—out of deference to Deputy Gorey I will say the winner of the Waterloo Cup. But the average person does not like to send away a telegram from his door. At the same time if it is opened, and contains trivial matter, people feel great irritation, not only with the sender, but also with the Government. There is no means of stopping this, and that is what annoys people, and makes them discontented. You cannot tell everybody not to send you telegrams. I remember the case of certain people living a long way from a post office putting on their notepaper: "Telegraph office so far away, porterage 5/-," as a hint to people not to send them telegrams. But it would be almost impossible for people to do that now. These things that you cannot control are very irritating and they are bad policy for the State. I agree if Deputy Gorey's amendment is intended to express the view that there should be a wider area of delivery it should receive the support of the Dáil.
It has always seemed astonishing to me that people who live in rural areas and have to pay porterage, perhaps a considerable sum, and who get a considerable number of telegrams in the year, do not go in for the party telephone system. I have some experience of that for a good many years. In my district, to the people who live around me the cost of porterage would be fairly considerable and the farmers and doctors and some veterinary surgeons and others in our district put their heads together and persuaded the Post Office to extend to us the party telephone system and we found it a most wonderful convenience. We send telegrams and receive them through this system. Of course people say that in the party-system there is no privacy. I do not think that any of us ever found the least inconvenience in that connection. There are fourteen of us on the two lines that come into our district. They are connected together and there never was the least difficulty or unpleasantness, or anything of that kind, arising out of it, nothing but the utmost convenience, and no one of us would give it up. We get our telegrams delivered at once and sent on without any trouble about them. I should recommend all people who do a lot of telegraph work to club together and have the party system established amongst them. I can say, speaking from experience, that the convenience of that system is beyond measure. But, apart from that, if people do not wish to pay for their telegrams delivered by messenger they can leave word with the Post Office to have them sent on by post. I do not think that there is any grievance in the complaints that have been brought forward. I think people have only themselves to blame if they do not come and make things better for themselves by having the party-system at their doors; and it is cheap also. I only pay £1 12s. 0d. a quarter. It was cheaper a few years ago when it was only £4 a year. Now it is £6 8s. 0d.
I cannot accept the proposals put forward by Deputy Johnson for a reconsideration of this matter. Before introducing it, I gave it the utmost consideration. Since then I thought it over, and I have satisfied myself that there is no alternative that is likely to give satisfaction. If you increase the limit of a mile to two miles the people beyond the two miles will howl, and so on; if you increase the limit beyond two miles, the people three miles distant will complain. You are not going to get rid of these complaints by a proposal of that kind. Again, it is not too much to expect people to pay their way. The argument comes badly from people who shout on public platforms that the State is recklessly over-spending, and who now ask for another trifle of £40,000. You must draw the line somewhere. I am out for economy.
At the expense of a certain section of the community.
In endeavouring to effect economies here I find justification because I do not feel that we are doing any injustice or inflicting any hardship upon those people by asking them to pay for the delivery of telegrams they receive. Rural telegrams may be classed under three categories. You have: "Mother going home to-morrow." Next you have the racing element—farmers who, instead of farming the land, spend their time chasing winners in England.
Where does that happen?
Can the Minister give us any comparison between the number of telegrams on betting sent from rural districts and from towns?
You have the third category, the business people. Business people must be aware that if they want to send telegrams they must be prepared to pay for them.
What about the £180,000 you last year, and not a word about it?
That is about the hundredth time we have heard that.
The Minister is not honest about it.
Deputy Gorey must withdraw that remark.
Oh, I mean not honest in the sense of avoiding the facts. Of course I know the Minister is, personally, the most honest man in the world.
The Deputy knows the Minister, apparently, better than he knows himself. Business people who send telegrams can afford to pay for them. I have no sympathy with their desire to shift the payment on to other shoulders. Wherever we find a cooperative society or a creamery hard hit by these payments we endeavour to extend the telephone service to them, and we have done that in a great many cases this year with a very substantial loss to the State, and we will continue to do it. Let us further examine this alleged grievance. In the year 1923-24 we netted £78,000 in post office work in the city of Dublin, and similar sums in other cities and towns, varying according to business. We made a profit in the working of this service running into some hundreds of thousands of pounds through urban work, and we lost that profit and £700,000 in addition in doing Deputy Gorey's work in the country. Now, in contributing to these rural services, are we acting impartially? If we acted impartially we would spend in proportion to our returns in rural areas. It will have to come to that. That is the position at the moment. I see no justification whatever for this further expenditure, and I regret that any Deputies should suggest that we should lightly handle a sum of £40,000 in doing this.
I wonder has the Minister weighed the consequences of the statement he has made, and that is, that there may be a necessity to reconsider the administration of these services, and I presume, every other service in the State, from the point of view of what any particular body of the citizens are prepared to contribute to the maintenance of the State service. That is the way the Minister has put his case. If it comes to that we will have to divide our Exchequer into five or six or perhaps a dozen different compartments. Into each of them and out of each of them certain sums will come and go. A certain service will get a certain contribution from each, and a certain body of people will be served. That, I do not think, is the aim of the Minister in some respects. If it is to be decentralised like that, the sooner we make up our minds to dispense with such services the better. That is the point of view the Minister expresses when he says that Dublin contributes so much to the maintenance of the Post Office and so much is lost because that service is extended down through the rural districts. He goes on, further, to say that he will have to consider whether this can be continued in the future or not, or whether in the rural districts we may not have to pay a higher postal rate, a higher telephone rate and a higher charge for delivery of telegrams than the people who live in the cities and towns, simply because we live in the country. If that is the way the Minister wants to put it, it is just as well that we should have it marked out definitely and clearly. We accept that statement from the Minister.
I will now put the question. An amendment has been proposed to reduce sub-head (a) of the Vote by £100.
On a point of order, I take it that the motion is that a certain sum in gross shall be voted. We do not, in the motion, allocate the sums to particular sub-heads. I submit that the amendment will have to take the form of a reduction of the gross sum by £100, irrespective of the sub-head.
I will put the amendment to reduce the vote by £100.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 39.
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- John J. Cole.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Micheál O hAonghusa.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Gorey and Baxter. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
Under sub-head (a) there are one or two matters of detail that have not been raised. We have been dealing with the question of Departmental policy as far as the public are concerned. There are one or two matters in connection with the administration of the Department internally to which I would like to draw attention. The first is the excessively large number of temporary clerks, telegraphists, and postmen, and I want to urge that as many as possible of these should be as quickly as possible absorbed into the established branches. I think there have been a few recently absorbed from the temporary and auxiliary postal service. Some six or seven months ago there was an announcement of an examination for temporary sorting clerks and telegraphists, to be held early in 1925. So far no intimation has been given to the public as to when that examination is to take place. I want to urge that the number of persons in these lists who are described as "temporary employees" is altogether excessive. In some cases the temporary employees are not denoted. I see on page 231 of the Estimates an item which shows that there are "5,443 outdoor supervising officers, postmen, cleaners and messengers, including unestablished force." I think that that number "including unestablished force" is excessive. I want to urge that there should be a reduction in the number of unestablished men by a very large proportion, that their position should be regularised, and that they should become members of the established branches. There is, as has been suggested, a large number of persons employed in the Post Office as temporary employees who are very much underpaid. The effect of that is not good for the service, not good for the public, and is not good in any way except from the point of view of cheap-and-nastiness. I would press upon the Minister the necessity of absorbing into the established branches a very large number of those who are at present, and have been for a long time, temporary. The same remark applies to auxiliary postmen. The number at present in the service is about 2,500. They are working from eighteen to thirtyfive hours a week. It is suggested, of course, that these men are employed part-time in the Post Office and that they can obtain other employment. But the hours and conditions under which auxiliary postmen work, make it, in very many cases, impossible for them to obtain other work to fit in. The effect is that the auxiliary postman's sole employment is as a postman at wages which are entirely unsatisfactory, and not sufficient to enable a man to keep a proper standard of life. I understand that there is a considerable number of vacancies in the established classes, and I urge that there should be opportunities now for including amongst the establishment a large number of those who are at present employed as auxiliaries.
There is then a matter that is not easy to deal with unless one has details. It is, I suppose, known to every Deputy who has followed public matters for years, that in the Post Office, as in some of the other public services, there have been charges pretty freely floating of favouritism in matters of promotion. It was a long-established grievance in the postal service under the old regime, and I am quite sure the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs knows something about it. Complaints of favouritism in matters of promotion were sought to be remedied by a general understanding —perhaps not very rigid—that seniority would play the greater part, and that seniority, given regular, satisfactory qualifications, would be depended upon in respect of promotion. It is undoubtedly true to say that, whether well or ill-founded, there is a very strong belief throughout the service that favouritism in matters of promotion is rifer to-day than it was even under the old regime. Part of that suspicion, no doubt, is due to conditions which prevailed during the last two years. That suspicion was rife throughout the country, and many charges of a general kind arising out of prejudice, envy, or malice, accounted to some extent for the general suspicion of favouritism.
I think there is necessity for a facing of the fact that this suspicion and belief is very widespread at the present time, and it is not declining with the decline in the general dissatisfaction and dissension within the country. To give an illustration, I am told that in respect of sorting clerks and telegraphists in Dublin, so far from the seniority list being relied upon in making selections for appointments, qualified officers have been passed over to the extent of 200 to 250 behind in the lists. In the case of, say, 5 or 6 particular officers who came in long after the earlier ones on the list, to the extent of the numbers 227 to 276, these men have been placed ahead of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. That is to say, preferences have been given to people who came into the service last over other qualified officers who had been in the service for a long time and who were their seniors. There may be a defence of that on the part of the Minister when he may say those particular officers had long service in the British Postal Department.
I am told it has become quite a practice that in the case of transferred officers, officers transferred from London, it is almost inevitable that they will be given preference when promotion is in question. This preference to transferred officers from London is one item in the general charge of favouritism. The preferences do not apply only to officers who have been transferred from London; but those seem to be the cases on which stress is laid. I think it is desirable that the Minister should face this general dissatisfaction in the service and give some clear statement of the policy of the Department in respect to this matter of promotion and indicate what part seniority plays when the question of promotions arise. I have raised these matters because I think it is desirable that they should be raised in public so that a public explanation and defence on the part of the Minister can be made. This will give him an opportunity to make that explanation.
Under this sub-head, as I understand it—I refer to sub-head (a).
I would like to know are we still discussing this sub-head, or what exactly are we discussing? This is the third day on which we have taken up a discussion which we should have taken in the first instance. We should have begun with the sub-heads. We did not do so, and we have not yet done so. If we continue at this rate of progress we can count on several more days of discussion. I think we ought to proceed on some definite lines, such as apply to the other Estimates.
We are supposed to go through the different items. I take it there will not be many points touched upon in the general discussion.
We are dealing with a particular sub-head, and I submit, with great respect, that it has been the custom here, on every Estimate that has been considered in this House, that every sub-head has been considered separately. The privileges of Deputies and Ministers have never been curtailed, and the suggestion to curtail them has never come from any other Minister except the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I refer to the Standing Order in this connection, and the practice of the House, which goes much further. I submit that I am perfectly entitled to discuss and raise matters and speak three times on this sub-head.
What point does Deputy Gorey desire to raise?
That, I will develop. If I were to mention now what points I am going to speak on I would have no occasion to speak at all, because I would have covered the ground I intend to cover. I want to deal with sub-head (a) (3). I will not deal with items 1, 2, or 4 under that sub-head at all. I want to deal with provincial offices. Under the head of provincial establishments I find the figure, for the first time, dealing with boy messengers, and under Scale 2 the number is 94. Under Scale 3 the number is 358. The total is 452. The wages under Scale 2, for 94 messengers, vary from 6s. to 19s., and in Scale 3, for 358 messengers, the wages vary from 6s. to 18s. I am not in a position to contradict the figure of 18s. It may be paid in certain cases; I am sure it is, in the provinces, and that embraces the provincial towns. Constant messengers have to be employed, and not part-time messengers, and for that reason I accept 18s. as obtaining in some cases. If we strike an average, especially for the rural areas, of 10s., we are getting beyond what I think is paid to the rural messengers. Taking the 452 messengers employed in provincial establishments, and giving those 452 an average wage of 10s. a week, which is really more than is actually given, we will find what messengers actually cost the State for the provincial service alone. Multiplying the figure 452, not by 10s., which would mean £26 a year, but by £30, which would, in my opinion, be more than an average, we get a total cost of £13,560. That represents the cost to the State of messengers who deliver telegrams in the Saorstát. I see one of the Minister's officers shaking his head. If I am wrong, I am open to correction, and I hope the figures will be given. As I see it, this service is for messengers. If the cost set out under the head of messengers does not represent what the messengers really cost the Saorstát for their services, I would like to know what it is. Where am I to get the figure?
I am making my assumption on a very conservative estimate, and I find that it takes £13,560 to defray the cost of messengers for the provincial establishments. That gives you in hard figures what the cost of telegrams in provincial establishments means to the State. Perhaps Deputy Johnson will now have a clear indication of what the actual figures are. For that service that is costing thirteen and a half thousand pounds you are recovering £41,000. That is on the Minister's own admission. He is recovering that money from portion of the people that the service is intended for. These are the figures I want the Minister to explain. I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory explanation, some explanation that would satisfy me and ease my mind. I only want to be satisfied. While I see something here distinctly wroig and distinctly as it should not be, you will have me, and every honest member of this Dáil who is not tied body and soul, giving clean votes and straight votes on this question.
Does the Minister finally answer now on sub-head (a), or have we permission to put other questions? Shall I allow him answer now on the other points that have been raised before raising any other question?
I would like to know on what sub-head we are working.
Sub-head (a) (3).
Therefore I take it that sub-heads (a) (1) and (a) (2) are finished and that there will be no further question on them?
I want to ask the Minister a question on sub-head (a) (1).
Now, where are we?
Deputy Heffernan can put his question now.
I want to get information from the Minister in reference to the increase in the staff of the Secretary's office. It has increased from 119 to 136 since 1924, and the salaries have increased from £45,620 to £54,735. This seems to be a greater increase than in any other Department.
I see some Deputies smiling, and I might say that in the Deputy's absence I answered that question. I do not think the Deputy will expect me to answer it again, and I have no intention of answering it again. It was not my fault if the Deputy was not here.
Are there any further questions to be raised on this sub-head?
Perhaps we could make some progress if I answered Deputy Johnson's questions, which do not come under any of these sub-heads and we could then advance from sub-head 3. Deputy Johnson draws attention to the fact that we have, in his opinion, more temporary employees than we should have. It is not our desire to retain disproportionate numbers of people, but it will take some time to get through the various Civil Service examinations. Temporary employees increased very much during the war period and up to the institution of the Civil Service Commission. The increase is now largely disappearing and it is our desire that it should disappear as quickly as possible. Auxiliary postmen, otherwise part-time postmen, are taken on with a clear understanding that other sources of employment are available. We employ them, and clearly set forth the conditions, for a certain number of hours per day and per week. Beyond that we have no responsibility. They are not eligible for appointment. Appointments are obtained for boy messengers and temporary hands in urban offices. Auxiliaries were never included in the category of possible appointees, and I do not think that we would be justified in departing from that well and, I suppose, carefully considered headline.
The Deputy also refers to alleged favouritism in the Post Office. I do not admit that there is any favouritism. I may, at the outset, state that one at the head of a Department is largely in the hands of his subordinates in matters of this kind—very largely. One must depend very largely on the advice given by his subordinates, but as far as I can judge—and I am responsible for all appointments in the service, and I go into them very carefully—I do not think my subordinates have ill-advised me in respect of these promotions. Men have been selected for executive offices, over the heads of other men. There are very few who will admit they should have been passed over, but we have to be the judges. We are responsible for the service. We have to discriminate between man and man in a matter of this kind, otherwise we will have a very indifferent service. We have given more promotion in this service since the Treaty than would have been given in the English service in 20 years, largely by virtue of the fact that we have taken from the service for other Departments. That has given an opening to our men that they never anticipated, and I think the number promoted to clerical officers has reached the 300 level, which is only part of the line of promotion.
When statements of this kind are made—I notice that they are bandied round outside pretty much by associations, and I have seen them referred to in the Press from time to time—I would like something more definite than a bald statement. I do not say that Deputy Johnson agrees with the statement. He has merely stated what has been said, but I would like to have something more definite when favouritism is mentioned than the mere fact that it exists. I am entitled to get definite instances, and if I get any I will go into them carefully. I am pretty well sure that it will be found they do not come under that category.
I can give the Minister the names and the numbers of the men on the seniority lists. They are: J.J. Carroll, No. 54; R.J. Daly, No. 91; H.A. Jones, No. 93; T. Gilmore, No. 96; B. O'Reilly, No. 104; W. Keane, No. 227; T. Heffernan, No. 256; J. Griffin, No. 257; S. Maguire, No. 270; J. Cohalane, No. 272, and D.P. Cremin, No. 276. The numbers I have quoted are the numbers in the seniority list. I would like to have some information to my own satisfaction as to what principle in respect of seniority is at work which removes seniority almost out of consideration in view of these numbers.
Seniority and ability —these have been the constituent elements in selections for executive posts, for the higher posts. We have to consider ability as well as seniority and that accounts for the apparent differentiation. No doubt it has given room for grievance to those who have not been selected, but, as I say, on us rests the onus of producing a competent service, and we are doing that. I want further to say here that I have never had any sympathy with the promotion of an official on any grounds other than value. Friendship plays no part in my judgment in matters of this kind; I have never believed that it is possible to get anywhere on the friendship line. There are comparatively few grievances in regard to promotion in the service, very few grievances indeed, and I would be prepared to examine that position minutely with the Deputy at any time if he so desires.
No, I do not want to pretend to interfere with the Minister's discretion.
Deputy Gorey has reverted to the delivery charge. He pointed to the fact that four hundred odd messengers have been engaged in this business at wages of from 8/- to 18/- a week.
Six shillings to 19/-.
These are permanent messengers; they constitute a very small part of our force for that work. We have over 2,000 sub-offices alone, apart from salaried offices, and we have at least one messenger for every office. The overwhelming majority of these are casuals, and they are paid so much a mile. If we charge 6d. a mile they are paid 6d. a mile. Therefore, the Deputy's point very largely disappears.
Where are the figures in connection with this to be found?
What figures?
The figures for this particular class of messenger. Where are they to be found in the Estimates?
They are not in the Estimates.
Why are they not?
There is no necessity to have them in the Estimates. A sum is collected for the delivery of a telegram and that sum is paid to the messenger. It does not pass out of the Post Office.
What pays this particular class of messenger for services within the mile limit?
The sub-postmaster.
I think that this is the most unsatisfactory answering I have ever heard. We are told that a certain number of people are employed temporarily. They do not appear here at all. I make the statement deliberately that in offices with which I am acquainted there is no second messenger; there is only one, and sometimes there is no messenger at all; the postmistress or the postmaster sends out whoever can be got at the time. This question of boy messengers has not been explained at all; it has been ignored by the Minister. We want to get the exact cost, and the Minister refuses these figures. If there is any truth in figures, or in this Estimate, for goodness sake give us the figures and let us understand it. Do not be telling us that there are costs incurred that do not appear at all. It is not a complete Estimate, and it ought not to have been brought here.
On this point I would like to ask the Minister a question, purely on a matter of explanation. Am I right in understanding that the charge for delivery outside the area is paid to the messenger, and does not appear in any Post Office account?
Where casual messengers are employed we charge 6d. a mile for the delivery of the telegram, and we pay the casual messenger that sum.
Does it not come into the Post Office revenue?
No.
And the charge does not come into these Estimates?
No, not in the case of casuals.
Has that matter been discussed with the Minister for Finance?
Well, it has always been the rule.
How many of these casuals are there? How are we to know whether they are on the staff or not, or whether there are casuals or not?
I would like to try to unravel the differences. The amount which the Minister claims for sub-postmasters for this year is £92,250, and including the boy messengers at £10,000 you have a sum of about £100,000 for the services of the postmasters and the messengers. A sum of £41,000 is collected for the delivery of telegrams, and Deputy Gorey's point is that £41,000 in respect of this service, which only costs the State £100,000 for the sub-postmasters and the messengers, is not a reasonable amount to charge for deliveries in the country. Including the sub-postmasters, the whole all-in costs for that service is only £95,250. That is the point that Deputy Gorey wants to make. Most of those sub-postmasters are paid a salary out of which they have to contribute towards those messengers, but the £41,000 which is collected, and which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has in his accounts, is money which has been paid to the credit of the State somewhere, and it cannot have been paid casually; it must have come into the accounts somewhere.
I want to correct the statement I made in reply to Deputy Johnson a few moments ago. This item does pass through the accounts, but it does not alter the fact that we pay out what we receive.
Would the Minister point out where that item comes into the accounts?
If the Deputy would look at page 231—"Outdoor Supervising Officers, Postmen, Cleaners and Messengers (including Unestablished Force, Allowance for Delivery, Collection, etc.)"——
Does that mean temporary messengers that are not on the established force? Those would not come within the list of what he calls casual messengers.
Oh, yes, they do.
With regard to sub-head (c), I want to raise a question in connection with the temporary sorting office in Pearse Street. I understand that it is recognised by everybody, even by the Minister himself, as being quite an unfit place. It is said that the premises are damp, unhealthy, and altogether unfit for use as a sorting office. I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that he is expediting the preparations of new premises for this purpose.
Complaints of that kind were made, but I can find no justification for them. I had the premises inspected by the chief medical officer, and I went through them myself to see if I could find anything wrong. I am satisfied that the premises are suitable and that there is no justification for complaints of unsuitability.
I am taking no further part in this debate.
I want to call attention to sub-head (h) (2)—Losses by default, accident, etc. The sum of £10,000 which is set down appears to be rather a large one for losses by default and accident, and I want to ask the Minister whether it could not possibly be reduced to a certain extent. If Deputies would refer to the Appropriation Account for the years 1923-24 they will find that under that heading, though there was a greater sum voted, more than double the sum, the bulk of that sum was devoted to meeting losses by raids and losses caused by fire to the Rotunda Rink Post Office, and in that year the compensation for loss and damage to parcels and registered and insured letters came to just over £6,000. In my opinion that is the only charge that ought fairly to come under this sub-head. The Minister for Posts must compensate for registered letters that are lost, and ex gratia he compensates for parcels that are lost or damaged. But I do not think there ought to be a large provision for defaults of other kinds, ranging from deficiency in accounts of various kinds to a sum of 10d. for foreign and spurious coins collected in telephone automatic boxes. I think that the only legitimate charge that can be made under this head is for the loss of registered letters and loss and damage to parcels. That loss was surely greater in the year 1923-24 than it is now. Every Deputy remembers that at that time mails were frequently raided, and no doubt a certain amount of registered letters, and so on, went astray.
I would like to have some details as to how this charge was assessed, and I do not think that embezzlement, funds misappropriated, and things of that kind ought to come under this sub-head at all. I think we ought not to have a general head of £10,000, but that if money is misappropriated from the Post Office we ought to have definite and specific particulars. We do get that eventually in the Appropriation Account, but that is two years late. We ought, I think, to have a Supplementary Estimate dealing with embezzlements and matters of that kind, in order that we might test the financial control that the Minister is able to exercise over his subordinates. This is a large Department, dealing with large sums of money, and it is very important that the financial control in connection with it should be automatic, if I might say so, that there should be a careful and continuous audit, and that no temptation should be placed in the way of these servants that they may embezzle or misappropriate money without being detected. I would like to ask the Minister for a few more details on this point.
This estimate of £10,000 is based on our experiences for the second half of last year, when we had to meet, under this heading, a deficiency of about £8,000. We hope the sum of £10,000 will be sufficient, and we hope we will be able to dispense with the whole of it. Nevertheless, from our recent experience, we are bound to make a provision of this kind.
Do we understand from the Minister that he accepts liability for registered letters, because I had a case where a registered letter was seized by bandits or irregulars? Although the sender of the letter proved definitely that there was money in the letter, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs refused to pay compensation, although he agreed that such a thing could happen. Compensation was refused under some regulation which operated under the British regime. I wonder whether the liability for registered letters is still the same?
It is precisely in the old state, the state laid down by regulations. It would be very dangerous for us to depart from that. Otherwise, people everywhere would be claiming for things that they had not in their possession. Bear that in mind. I do not think there is much chance of a rectification of this item owing to our experience.
As far as I can understand it, the Minister's justification for this vote is, that because his Department lost £10,000 by default last year, they may reasonably be expected to lose it this year. He asks the Dáil to be satisfied with that explanation. I think we should know what steps have been taken to check these defaults, and I think we should know a little more under what sub-heads they come: how much is compensation for loss of registered letters, and how much is for misappropriation or embezzlement of funds. Can the Minister give us more information, and say what steps are being taken to bring this sub-head down?
It is very difficult for me to give the definite items of loss. They cover a rather wide field. It may happen that the sum of two or three thousand pounds has been dispatched from the head to a sub-office and that a raider intercepts it. You could then write down two or three thousand pounds under that head. The next year it would be under some other head. It would not be any guide to show under what particular head it occurred. It varies. The tightening up of our intelligence section will, we hope, reduce the losses which have resulted in that way during the last twelve months.
This is an estimate of what you may expect during next year not on account of last year?
Yes.
Would the Minister say what exactly is the position with regard to registered letters? If the regulations are such that if I register a letter and enclose money and afterwards am unable to recover it from the Post Office, should it be lost, what is the object of having a letter registered at all? I would ask the Minister for a clearer definition of the regulations, because a statement like what he has just made will certainly have a serious effect on people outside. They can only gather that registration is not a safeguard at all.
All the information that the Deputy requires on this subject is set out in the regulations of the Post Office, and I would advise him, seeing that these are available in the House, to switch his attention on to them. If he wishes, on the other hand, that I should start on these regulations and go right through them I shall be quite pleased to do so.
I rose because the Minister had made a definite statement, in reply to Deputy Wilson, that sometimes people are accustomed to make claims that they are not entitled to make—in other words, to make bogus claims. As the Minister has put it, it can certainly be interpreted that people claim to have put amounts into registered letters that they never put in, and on that assumption that the responsibility on the Post Office lapses. If the Minister is satisfied to let the statement go that there is no responsibility on the part of the Post Office, and that they do not undertake responsibility, and if he is not going to give reasons why they are not responsible, what conclusion is to be drawn as to the benefit or otherwise of registering letters?
Whatever information Deputy Baxter may be able to get from the Post Office guide, I cannot get the information I have asked for either in the Post Office guide or from the Minister. The only inference I can draw from the Minister's reply is that the Department makes up its mind that it will lose £10,000 by default, that if it does not lose it one way it will lose it another, and, as far as the Minister can tell us, no special precautions are taken to prevent default occurring. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. I do not think the Dáil is satisfied with the Minister's explanation, and I move to reduce this sub-head by £2,000. That would give the Minister £1,000 margin, and £7,000 for his registered letters and parcels, and will, perhaps, compel the Department to be a little more careful.
An amendment, to reduce the sub-head by £100, has already been defeated, and any further amendment must be to reduce it by a sum less than £100.
I move to reduce the sub-head by £99.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 14; Níl, 39.
Tá
- Earnán, Altún.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Connor Hogan.
- Risteárd, Mac Liam.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Máirtín O Conalláin. Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Tellers: Tá, Major Cooper, Donnchadh O Guaire. Níl, Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.
Amendment declared lost.
As to sub-head (h) (3)—"Incidental Expenses"—I should like some indication as to how the amount is made up. I see the item has decreased since last year, but there is no indication of what the expenses are. Under a similar sub-head (1) (5), "Engineering," details are given more or less. Such a considerable item as this should not be included under the head of incidental expenses without fuller details being given.
I wish to raise a point on sub-head (h) (4). I want to call attention to the very inadequate amount voted for police. While the losses by default are £10,000, only £45 is spent on the police service to try and prevent losses. It seems to me that is out of all proportion. I would willingly pay more for police and less for compensation to people whose property is stolen. That would, at any rate, provide employment, if nothing else. I should like to know how the sum is made up, how many people are employed, and what wages they get, because £45 is ludicrous—less than £1 per week for police. Is it some small extra payment made to the members of the Gárda Síochána for services rendered, or has the Minister a police force of his own, remunerated at what cannot be a trade union rate?
The sum of £1,500 for incidental expenses includes a number of small items that do not properly come under other headings, and are, therefore, grouped under that heading. As to the £45 for police, a policeman is attached for a limited time to our intelligence department, and we consequently pay the expenses incurred.
I respectfully submit that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has not answered my question. Obviously it is made up of items that could not be included under any other sub-heads, but that gives me no information. I maintain that we are entitled to that information, and we are told that we can get all information connected with the accounts. We asked that a special committee should be appointed to go into the different accounts, as such work could not be done adequately in the Dáil. When I ask a simple question dealing with a considerable amount of money I am told it is made up of items that could not be included under other sub-heads. The only conclusion to come to is that the Minister wants to evade the question and that he thinks I am so soft I will not persist in it.
Under this sub-head there is an item of £45 for police. I take it that the cost of the police is defrayed in the Vote for the Gárda Síochána. If this item consists of expenses for protective work or something of that kind, I take it the amount is a present for someone who is employed at it. I am not satisfied, and I move a reduction of sub-head (3) by £98 10s. 0d.
I think the only difficulty is that the items are over-explanatory. In order to help the Dáil, we dissect the Vote right down to a sum of £1,500, and we explain that. We point out that it includes headings that cannot properly be brought under any other Vote, and that is not accepted.
What are the headings?
How do you expect me to give the headings here? I do not carry them about in my pocket. We require the assistance of a policeman in our intelligence department from time to time on investigations. We pay him and make provision for his employment. That amounts to £45, and that explanation ought to be sufficient.
I am dissatisfied, and I am sure the Dáil is not satisfied, with the Minister's explanation. I move a reduction of sub-head (h) (3) by £99.
Deputy Gorey has already moved an amendment to that sub-head.
Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of some of these expenses. I do not want to make vexatious objections or to ask petty questions, but if one item was explained that comes under the heading of incidental expenses, perhaps it would clear the mind of the Dáil.
I do not want to intervene in the discussion between the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and Deputies, but I may say that amongst the things that are included in incidental expenses in other Votes are such things as washing the office towels and providing the office soap.
To judge from what happens at the Public Accounts Committee, another very frequent item under incidental expenses is the provision of newspapers. Are they included?
Yes.
Why cannot the Minister tell us?
I want to point out to the Minister, if he is anxious to get this Vote through, that he is standing in his own light. There is no desire to obstruct him. Rightly or wrongly, I say to the Minister that he has given certain Deputies the impression that he does not want to impart information that obviously should be at his disposal. If he seeks to give that impression to Deputies, he is not doing himself a service nor helping the progress of business.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Connor Hogan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Connalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhán.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Mártín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gorey and Heffernan; Níl, Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
I suggest that the interval mentioned by the President at the commencement of the sitting has now arrived.
The President did not suggest any time in particular for adjourning.
We are perfectly satisfied to go on, but if there is to be an interval we could take it now.
I am prepared to meet the views of the House at any time on this motion, but might I make a suggestion? We have now occupied eight or ten hours in discussing this Estimate, and we have forty other Estimates to deal with. There was a wish generally expressed, and an admitted agreement that we should rise on the 26th June. Unless I were to hear to the contrary. I would propose that we shape our business to meet that particular date. The only alternative is that of all-night sittings, but these are unfair to everybody, and they put a severe strain on Deputies who have been attending so long. I would make an appeal for expeditious treatment of the Estimates. I do not mean to gloss over them or to pass them en bloc, but I appeal for some consideration in view of the length of time which we have allowed for their consideration, and of the fact that the time allowed this year—I am not speaking from the actual record—is, I think, longer than we have spent on others. I say no more than that at present. I move that the Dáil adjourns until 7.30 p.m.
Deputy Johnson has asked me when we would have the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Land Commission. I anticipate that it will be possible to take these in the second week of June, say, on the tenth of June. I anticipate that it may be possible to take some of the Votes for the Ministry of Industry and Commerce on one of the days.
I rather put forward that question about the Land Commission and Ministry of Agriculture Estimates, as I feared they might be delayed until the 25th June, and there would not be full time to discuss them. I would, perhaps, be permitted to say that I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs appears rather to have resented criticism, and, therefore, has been very chary in his answers. That has, perhaps, caused this little blockage in the course of business.
I want to explain to the House the cause of our attitude on this matter. We have, even more than Deputy Johnson seems to think, been irritated by the attitude of the Minister. His attitude is very like that of the first Emperor Napoleon, and we resent it. We thought when electing the Minister to his present office that he was a plain man who could meet us without a lofty, head-in-the-sky manner. It has irritated us, and we do not think that that is either very good business or politics. I do not think that he has met us in a fair way, and because of that we intend to use all the facilities that Standing Orders give us on this Vote.
Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m., an Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the Chair.
We will now take sub-head (i).
I want to raise a matter on this sub-head which is typical, I think, of other departments in the Government service, but it comes quite definitely and clearly under this sub-head in respect of the department of Posts and Telegraphs. I refer to the question of the employment of civilian labour, and the refusal to employ men who have not been in the National Army. This matter has arisen on many occasions during the last couple of years. We are aware that an understanding was arrived at, and I think an instruction given by the Executive Council to the departments —an instruction was certainly given to local government authorities—that preferences were to be given to ex-members of the Army. But, I gather that in respect to this branch—the engineering establishment—it has been interpreted, not as a preference, but as a natural barrier against any person being employed who was not a member of the National Army. I do not know how long it is intended that this preference should be given or this barrier imposed. I am going to press for a complete revision of that instruction. I think I am right in saying that in many departments—possibly in this department as much as in any other, if not more than in any other—it will be found that the restriction as to ex-members of the Army—the area of choice is so limited that the best value is not being got for the wages paid.
I would have no very strong objection to preference, other things being equal, within limits, but I think it is not fair to the civilian element of the community to say that they are debarred from employment until every ex-National Army man has been absorbed in the public service. As we have said many a time, men who were in the Army were at least fed and clothed and paid during the time they were in it. They have now had a preference for a year or two years, and I submit that the time has arrived when that preference ought to be withdrawn, or certainly when that embargo upon non-Army men should be abandoned. I could understand the case if it were said that here are fifty men unemployed; twenty of them were members of the National Army, and thirty of them were not; we are going to take men in proportion, so many from amongst the ex-Army men and so many civilians. I maintain that if there is going to be anything like equity in the choice of persons to be employed at labour tasks, preference should be given to the men who have wives and families, and the greatest number of dependents. As it is, what is happening is, that the man who has no dependents is in many cases taken on, while men who have families are left. Many of these men with families have been unemployed for a long time. They have run out of benefit under unemployment insurance, and are left to the mercy of home help, charity or something worse.
I say, if there is going to be preference in the employment given in this branch of the service, it should be for men who have dependents. I suggest, too, it is more likely that the men who have dependents would have had greater experience and be more efficient wage-earners, and that better and more efficient service would be obtained in the department by removing this embargo on civilian labour. I have taken this particular department as an instance. I think it is glaring in this case, because I understand from an official letter that the engineers consider they are bound only to consider applications from candidates who had hitherto been in the Army, and therefor all civilian applicants for employment are brushed aside. The same complaint arises in respect to other departments. I want to press upon the Ministry, without arguing the question as to the rights or the wrongs of it in the past, that the time has arrived when that preference should be modified, and that at least a proportionate number of unemployed men who were not ex-Army men should be taken into employment, and that where there are preferences to be given it ought to be a preference for men who have families and responsibilities, rather than to young men who have no families and no responsibilities.
This is a matter which is not peculiar, as Deputy Johnson indicated, to the Post Office. It applies to all Government departments. I admit at once the point made by Deputy Johnson, that the time must come when we will cease to give the degree of preference, amounting in certain cases to a monopoly, that has been given to ex-members of the National Army. We reached a point when it became safe to demobilise the Army. We had some 55,000 men in the Army, and we turned them out in very large numbers within a very brief period, bringing the strength of the Army down to well under 20,000 men. A great number of the men demobilised were married men with dependents. The unmarried men had, in many cases, the option of remaining on in the Army. We were doing away with dependents' allowances on the scale that we had been giving them, and it became impossible to retain a large number of married men in the Army. That meant that something like 40,000 men who had been in the State service were being turned out on the streets. We tried to reserve for them opportunities for employment in the service of the State. We had several clerical examinations limited to ex-officers, and clerical examinations for Customs officers. We have abandoned the idea of holding any further examinations confined to ex-members of the National Army, or any further examinations reserved to that class, because the results of the more recent examinations have convinced us that we have got all the good material out of them. It may be that in future men who served in the National Army will be given a certain preference by way of service marks, but examinations confined to those men will not be held. So far as temporary employment was concerned, there was also a general instruction issued that in all cases the offices must employ only ex-members of the National Army. Temporary clerks, and workmen, and so forth, were all drawn from the ranks of our ex-soldiers. But the matter was never so rigid that if a department showed that suitable men, for the work to be done, could not be got from the ranks of ex-soldiers, they would not be permitted to go outside the ranks in particular cases.
Would the Minister say whether that was within a given area? I understand there has been something like a ruling that even within a particular area, if men were required and ex-soldiers could not be obtained in that area, it was an obligation upon the official making the engagement to go outside the area and bring in ex-soldiers.
I think it would be. I was really thinking where a particular type of skill or experience seemed to be necessary, if reasonably satisfactory ex-Army candidates could not be got the Departments were allowed to go outside the ranks of ex-service men. I realise very well that that sort of monopolistic preference is not a thing that could be continued indefinitely, and I recognise that it is a matter for consideration whether, very soon, there may not be some relaxation of the rule and whether we might not give people who have not served in the National Army a chance that they have not got at the present time.
I think, therefore, in all the circumstances, we have certainly done no more for the ex-Army men than we should have done. If they have not had the hardships, and all the dangers, perhaps, that soldiers have had to endure in some wars, at any rate, they did come in, and they did do service that saved the fabric of the State, and I do not think, whether the experiences that the soldiers have gone through have been very hard experiences or the reverse, that any State, or any Government, could afford, after what they have done, simply to turn them out on the streets and take no further interest in them.
I think it is really necessary for a reasonable period, after a big batch of men have been demobilised, to use all the resources that we have in employing them in a proper way in the service of the State and for the purpose of meeting the claims that these men have, and, above all, which they feel they have.
I have not gone carefully into the question whether the time has been reached when a change in the general policy should be made, and I, certainly, have not discussed it with other Ministers, but I admit Deputy Johnson's point, that we cannot continue that for years after demobilisation has taken place, and that, at some time, men must be presumed to have gone back to their ordinary avocations in some way, and to be in much the position that they would have been if they had not been in the Army. And the same question must arise in all branches of the public service that has already arisen in the clerical grades. As I have said, the position reached there is that we seem to have exhausted any suitable material that existed amongst the ex-Army men. To some extent the same position is bound to be reached in other branches. It is a matter about which I can only promise that careful consideration will be given to it.
On sub-head (m) I want to make a few remarks and ask some questions regarding telephones. The Minister has said that they are very anxious to develop this service and that it would be a boon to the community. I quite agree that the telephone service is a boon where there are communities, but where there are not communities and where the telephone has to be extended to private houses in rural districts, it is going to be a very expensive item. I doubt if it is ever going to be a service that could economically be availed of by the average rural citizen. I have had information, contained in a letter from the Minister's Department, as I mentioned earlier, where £30 was charged for an installation. Not alone that, but a guarantee was asked for five years to justify the connection. Rural populations will not always be as happy as the population to which Deputy Wolfe refers presumably is, where they have a doctor and a vet——
All these people are a considerable distance from one another. There is only one quite close to me. The others are fairly distant.
I do not know what the Deputy would call "fairly distant."
A mile and a half or two miles.
Where there is no doctor or vet. within five or six miles, I am afraid the Deputy's idea cannot be carried out. We know that doctors do not populate the country—fortunately for the country—quite so extensively as that and I rather think the results the Minister anticipates will not be realised. I want the rural public to know that £30 is sought for an installation with a guarantee for five years. That is what they have to contemplate for the service which is being dangled before them as something that they may avail themselves of in the future. They can avail themselves of it at a price but that price is going to be prohibitive—whether it is justly prohibitive or not I am not prepared to discuss now. But when this prospect is dangled before the rural population. they had better know what it means in money. I am talking about the case of a man in County Dublin, who is living rather near the lines of communication. It seems to me that this is going to be a very expensive item to the average citizen of the country and one that is not likely to be availed of. I would like to know what the Minister has to say about that and if he is going to charge on the basis of cost or on the basis of distance. He should tell us what the charge is really going to be based upon. That is a question that requires a clear understanding, and I hope the Minister will give us on that, at least, a clear explanation.
I am glad that the telephone service is one of the services in the Department for Posts and Telegraphs that is paying its way. We hope, that being so, that the Minister will see his way to establish more call offices throughout the country. I am quite sure that that would have the effect of bringing more business to the Post Office. Everywhere about my district where there has been an office opened, it has been, so far as I know, a success. There are one or two other matters that I should like to allude to. For a long time, the people of Kilcock have been most anxious to have a telephone office established there. There were considerable difficulties in the way, but the Minister was good enough to say that if there were a certain number of guarantors got—I think eight—he would extend the telephone there. I managed to get the names of fourteen guarantors but I have not yet heard that the telephone is in operation there. I would like to know if it will soon be working. There is no doubt about the guarantors and I am sure it would be a very paying proposition for the Post Office, because there are a certain number of racing men there who would employ it very much.
Now we are getting to know where the betting telegrams come from.
There are certain places where the call office and the telegraph office are not located together. People who have telephones in their houses cannot have telegrams delivered through the telephone. It would be a great convenience to them to have telegrams delivered through the telephone and dispatched by means of the 'phone. Where the call office and the telegraph office are at different places, as I think is the case at Leixlip, it is a great inconvenience to many people who are under the necessity of sending and receiving telegrams. I was asked if the Minister could be induced to establish trunk call offices on the Great Southern Railway, not at every station, but at important stations where fairs are held. If this were done, it would enable the people attending those fairs to communicate about the dispatch of stock to their own homes, so that it could be met at the trains. Probably it would be a paying proposition for the Post Office, too. Deputy Gorey alluded to the cost of installation. My impression was that when the telephone was installed at my house and at the houses of my neighbours, we did not pay for the installation. At least, I have no recollection of having done so or of having paid anything beyond a certain yearly charge.
I would like to ask if it is the Minister's policy to extend telephonic communication to the small towns and villages throughout the country. I have a case in point. Castledermot, in Kildare, has about 600 inhabitants, and the district about it is fairly populous. They have been making representations there, for some time, to have the telephone installed there, and I would like to ask the Minister if it is his intention to provide telephonic communication to places like that.
Considering the needs of this great horse-racing and betting county, I am sure the Minister will take special care to accommodate Deputy Wolfe and his friends. Deputy Good referred the other day to the amount of betting that was being indulged in and suggested that it ought to be discouraged. Deputy Wolfe seems to take a different point of view.
I am not a betting man.
All the accommodation possible should be given to these horse-racing and betting people, to do with the telephone what Deputy Good said they were doing with the telegraph service—that is, abusing it. I am sure the Minister will take that into consideration and do the best he can for these betting people.
I would like to have an opportunity of refuting Deputy Gorey's suggestion, that it is in the interests of betting people that Deputy Wolfe and myself have been speaking. I understand that Deputy Wolfe wants the telephone for Kilcock, and I want it for Castledermot, at the extreme end of the county and away from racing influence altogether.
That is very satisfactory.
I can assure Deputy Conlan that we are most anxious to extend the telephone to even the smallest villages. We have got to cater for the larger ones, in the first instance. Deputy Wolfe wants to know what are we doing about Kilcock. We hope to be operating in that particular quarter within the next three or four months. We are suffering from a shortage of technical staff—a shortage which I see little hope of rectifying—and we do not anticipate being able to cope with this particular job at least for the next three months. Some little time ago it was urged that we should introduce telephones to the important railway stations throughout the country, and erect call offices. That can only be done in co-operation with the railway authorities, because it would not pay us to maintain officials there for that particular purpose. We might, in the case of the Great Southern Railway, be able to co-ordinate the work of our own officials, who at present work the telegraph offices for the railway companies, with the telephone. But that possibility only applies to the Great Southern Railway.
took the Chair.
There are other people interested in other lines. There have been representations from the Great Northern, and also from the Midland Great Western section of the Southern Railways. Deputy Gorey complains that we require our pound of flesh for the extension of the telephone, and that in one instance an annual fee of £30, plus a guarantee for five years, was imposed. It was the custom of our predecessors, and it has continued in our time, to charge merely for the cost of capital expenditure, plus interest. Latterly, we have modified that somewhat, and made a sacrifice of State funds in order to expedite the introduction of the 'phone. It must be remembered that the erection of a 'phone over a distance of four or five miles, entails the erection of new poles. Then certain rights have to be got over land. These things involve fairly heavy expenditure. I do not see much hope of calling on unlimited State funds to aid in the installation of the telephone. The hope of the telephone in the rural areas lies, first, in the opening of exchanges in these parts of the country that have even limited compact populations—I mean small villages—and secondly, by the extension of the party line, such as one finds in Scandinavia, the United States and in a few other countries. The idea of extending a direct 'phone to every farmer's house is out of the question. The expense would be too much. We will have to depend, in the first instance, on the opening of exchanges pretty well everywhere; and secondly, on getting the farmers to take on the party lines. We believe they will, and we believe that will be the solution.
On this matter of telephones, I would like, if the Minister, before the debate is finished, would elaborate a little more on the question of the cost. I do not know what the custom has been in the past with regard to charges, or what his intention is. Is the idea that if the line is to be extended, say, to one farmer's house at his request, that that farmer is to bear the expense of the extension— that is, the cost of the extension to the Post Office? If I understand that to be the case, I would suggest that that is not a good policy. It is not a policy that is likely to result in the general utilisation of the telephone. If one or two farmers in a district were anxious to get the telephone to their houses, it should be extended to their houses at the least possible cost, and not at the actual cost of the extension. The very fact of these farmers getting the telephone and making use of it would encourage their neighbours, and where you would have one or two using it at first, you would have nine or ten in a short time. I am a great believer in the use that can be made of the telephone in the country. I differ in that respect from Deputy Gorey, because I have seen the use that can be made of it. From a business point of view, and from the social aspect, great advantages can accrue to the people from the 'phone. Great saving could be made with regard to time and expense if we could open up telephonic communication on a large scale throughout the country. I would suggest to the Minister, if he is going to deal with this matter, that he ought to do it on a broad general plan, and resort to propaganda and publicity. He should let the people know what it will cost and the advantages that will accrue to them if they avail of the telephone. If the Minister has not quite exhausted all he has to say, I would like if he would give us some idea of what the cost would be, and if the cost would vary from district to district, because I think this is a matter of great importance to the future development of the country.
There is one question I asked the Minister, and he forgot to answer it. That was about having the call office in all cases at the post office for the delivery by 'phone of telegrams sent there. I think this is rather an important matter.
It is not always possible to locate a telephone call office and a telegraph office in the same building. It should also be remembered that we have found a certain condition of affairs existing which is not easily changed, and cannot be changed without meeting with resistance. Now, there is no difficulty at any time in utilising the telephone for either the receipt or the despatch of a telegram. Even if the offices are not located in the same building, arrangements can always be made whereby telegrams can be telephoned.
Would there be any charge for sending the telegram from the post office to the call office?
What do you mean by the "call office"?
The telephone call office. When a telegram arrives at the post office, would there be any charge for sending it to the call office for transmission by 'phone?
No; we never charge for transmission of a telegram by telephone, for the reason that we save messenger employment by that means. Now, we have a very definite scheme of telephone development. I said at the outset that we are more keen on developing the telephone system than anything else. We believe the country has more to gain through this medium. We have no doubt whatever about that. We regard the telegraph and the postal systems as back numbers, so to speak. We think that the future of communication lies with the telephone. That has been proved to be the case in some of the most progressive nations in the world, and we hope to come within their magic sphere some time.
Before you can really outline a scheme for developing telephones over the rural areas, you have to build up the main channels. We found those channels semi-vacant, practically vacant and undeveloped. There were very few telephones in use in Ireland. We are building up those channels now. The main channels are practically built up and we are getting on to the feeding sources, the smaller rivers, so to speak. From those we will go on to the streamlets and in that way we will go right down through the various stages of development. We have not yet covered all the towns. There are towns in parts of Connaught, for instance, not developed. As a matter of fact, we are only entering that province. We have to deal with the bigger centres before we come to the smaller ones. When we come to the smaller areas we will have to envisage a scheme whereby we will be able to get into the rural parts and so complete the final stages.
There is nothing new in this respect. There is nothing confronting us that has not been done elsewhere. We have a headline for everything, and the farmers need have no doubt about it that we are most anxious to extend the telephone all over the Saorstát. Further, it will be the policy of the Department to subsidise the system from its own finances. In other words, during the coming year we will net £30,000 or £40,000 after the concession that we made in this Budget, and I would rather favour the idea of a further concession. We must make the telephones cheap and general. It is the great channel through which the public business can be done. It is rapid and it is timesaving and it puts us in a position to do our business with the same efficiency and speed as our competitors. That is why we are very keen on this question of telephones, and there need be no doubt that whenever and wherever we get an opportunity of establishing the telephones, we are going to do it with a will.
There are a couple of points that I wish to bring under the attention of the Minister. Deputy Wolfe has referred to those who have the telephones installed and he has touched on the question of having call offices different from Post Offices. Would it be possible for the Minister to arrange that when a wire is sent, even where the call office is not at the Post Office, that a subscriber will be asked if he desires to take the wire by telephone? There is usually a charge for delivery, and it could be avoided in that case. I know many cases of the sort, both personally and otherwise, through friends, and I am sure there are other Deputies who could instance similar cases. I would suggest to the Minister that the number of subscribers considered necessary in small villages, small country districts, would be reduced to a minimum, provided that his Department does not lose by the installation of the telephone in that particular village or district. I do not want to put it that they should not make any profit, but possibly the Minister could see his way to have the number of subscribers reduced somewhat. I know that to reach some fourteen or fifteen subscribers, wires have to be run a considerable distance and poles erected, and possibly, in some cases, rights over lands have to be acquired. and paid for; but in most of the small country towns and villages the telephone would be a decided advantage.
Then, again, you have local creameries. In many of the creameries that exist they have already a telephone. It is most important from their point of view. If the telephone is extended as is suggested, it would be of great benefit, as Deputy Gorey and Deputy Conlan pointed out, to farmers in the country. I happen to know that the telephone is the medium through which practically all the small farmers in Denmark conduct their business. Of course you have more people of that type there than you have in this country, and therefore there is the possibility of securing more subscribers. The 200-acre rancher is not a great asset to the Post Office or to postal authorities, because he would cost too much to give a single installation to. There are so many small farmers in Denmark, it is easier to facilitate them in the matter of the telephone, and they can communicate direct with the bacon factories or the creameries. It is certainly a great advantage to them.
There is another point that I would like to touch upon. It would be advisable on the evening before cattle fairs—I do not refer to markets; they do not count for much except, perhaps, in some areas—to have the telephone office left open for at least one hour longer than usual. You have numbers of buyers coming from different parts of Ireland. They might get into the town about 6 o'clock in the evening, and they might want to telephone at about 8 o'clock. They may want the returns from markets on the other side; they might want to know particulars about the Dublin market on a Thursday, or about Smithfield, Birkenhead, etc. Without the telephone office being left open they cannot get through to their principals in Dublin to ascertain the rates in relation to the cross-Channel markets. They would need all that information in the morning for their business at the fair. Numbers of complaints have been received from different parts of Ireland in regard to that matter. I would ask the Minister to extend the time for telephone calls on the evenings before fairs. I have no doubt the farmers will support me in this matter.
I beg to support Deputy D'Alton as regards the hours for telephone calls. In the town of Cavan, for instance, the telegraph office is not open until 9 a.m. That applies also to fair mornings. Farmers and dealers going to the fairs want to have the earliest possible information in regard to city markets and cross-Channel markets, and 9 o'clock is too late. It is really too late even on an ordinary day, not to speak of a fair day.
I desire to say one thing in connection with this matter. We would very much appreciate and welcome a greater development of the telephone service. We, like the Minister, believe that as far as small messages go, the telephone is going to be the medium of the future. We believe it is going to replace the telegraph service. It may, to some extent, replace the postal service, but I take it the postal service is something you can never abandon; I do not think we can in our time, at least. It must be maintained. Therefore, how this service will affect the postal service is not a matter of much concern now. Where it affects the telegraph service, we come to a big matter. The Minister has told us that the loss of the telegraph service runs into a quarter of a million. That is a thing we cannot look at and pass away from without having some food for thought. Complaints have been made with regard to the delivery of telegrams, and I think a position has been put up that is rather unanswerable from a few points of view. The citizen in the rural districts is placed at an extraordinary disadvantage.
To help the Minister to develop this particular service and to bring more benefit to the rural community we are prepared to co-operate as far as possible in every way with the postal service in regard to the development of this service. That is altogether different from what Deputy Heffernan thinks. I think we are of the same mind, but the question of cost in this individual case has been brought under my notice by a letter. The letter has been sent to me but I have not it here now. It is in order to remedy that state of affairs, to get a better understanding and to have a much better scheme, that I asked the question and I want an explanation about it. If that idea of charging £30 a year for five years got abroad and if it was not going to be remedied and a better system adopted, I have no hesitation in saying that you could bid good-bye to rural development of the telephone for years. I do think the Minister must go further, much further.
I suggest that there have been considerable differences of opinion with regard to how this service is administered in the country and the Minister's viewpoint, considerable differences of opinion. I do not think that an Advisory Committee has been set up in connection with this Ministry. Advisory Committees have been set up in other Ministries, especially extern Ministries. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture—and when we talk about the Minister for Lands and Agriculture I think it will be admitted that we are talking about one of the most efficient Ministers and one of the most efficient Ministries we have—has thought it advisable to set up Advisory Committees under the special Acts. Not alone has he set them up under one special Act but he thought it well in connection with the working of other special Acts to have an Advisory Committee. The Minister for Local Government has also an Advisory Committee. On the question of the roads he has the Roads Advisory Board. I think in order to give the country confidence in this Ministry and in order to have a better working arrangement, a better understanding between the public and the Minister, that the appointment of an Advisory Committee would be something that would bridge over the acute difference of opinion that at present exists.
I can see if arrangements are made, whereby a body of rural citizens can come together and guarantee a call office and deal with that question, that this service of telephones is going to be greatly extended in the very near future. I want to assure the Minister and the Government that although in the early part of this Vote a certain spirit originated—I do not hold it was altogether our fault; there is no use going into it now—we are prepared to co-operate with the Minister if the Minister is prepared to co-operate with the rural population. I say the best move in that direction would be the setting up of an Advisory Committee on which the rural population will be represented. The general public and the different interests will be represented on it and in that case any fault that is to be found will be attributed to that Advisory Committee and will not be so much a fault of the Minister. It will bring about an atmosphere of more confidence and I think that is very desirable in this Ministry for the reasons we have debated earlier in the Vote.
The Deputy rather implies a lack of confidence in the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs.
I do not.
I think they have shown more confidence in the particular Minister than in the Deputy, and they have not failed to assert their viewpoint whenever they have got an opportunity.
What is the Minister referring to?
We do not run Departments by public meetings, and if we bring in the villagers and the townsmen and everybody else to advise us in regard to how we are to run a Department which we are very capable of running, quite capable of running, I do not think we will make much headway. It is pretty much a waste of time. To suggest that you will get an Advisory Committee from people who have no knowledge whatever of Post Office Work——
I did not suggest such a thing at all.
Which is highly technical work, where a man requires a lifetime's training to know what he is talking about——
And would not even then know.
To suggest that a Committee of that kind should come along and advise on a service of this kind is very nice, but I do not think it would work. On the other hand, if a citizen requires us to run a private 'phone any number of miles through the country, we are prepared to run it if that citizen pays. The fact of taking an individual of that type, where a payment of £30 annually is called for, as an example of what the telephone system should be or may be, is not, I suggest, fair, and has no bearing on the situation. Our difficulty is not to get users for this system, but to meet the requirements of the users. I do not see much prospect within the next two or three years of our keeping up with the public demand.
Deputy D'Alton has some doubts about the utilisation of 'phone offices for telegraph work. There may be a few cases in the country where it is not possible to bring these two systems into play, but they are very few cases. There is an instance in Foxrock—to take one case—where you have got a telegraph section in one building and, a mile away, a telephone call office. In that case the telegrams are dealt with by the Central Telegraph Office here, direct to the addressee. I quite agree that there is something in the suggestion that exchanges should be kept open in towns or in rural centres on the eve of a market. We may be able to extend the time for an hour or two, and certainly the matter will be carefully considered. It seems to be a very reasonable suggestion. Deputy Cole tells us that some post offices on like occasions are not open until 9 a.m. My information is that there are no such cases. There were up to twelve months ago. No exception was made on a fair or a market day. We, at the request of some Deputies here, introduced a system whereby post offices were opened specially early on those days. If there is any exception I would be very pleased to be made aware of it.
I will make further inquiries in the matter.
With regard to N 1. I want to ask the Minister for some information with reference to item B—Non-Statutory Allowances. There is an item, Marriage Gratuities, £2,000. I simply want to know if these gratuities are voluntary, if there is any obligation on the Post Office Authorities to make these contributions, and how and on what scale are they based.
These gratuities are in lieu of superannuation allowances. They are of a special type and require the sanction of the Ministry of Finance in each case.
I want a ruling in this matter, because I desire to raise a point which may have been gone into in my absence, and, if so, I do not want to have it dealt with again. It is in regard to the question of the workshops that the Minister spoke about, and the manufacture of electrical appliances. I do not see any other heading under which I can deal with it, except on this of engineering stores, or on the final general Vote.
We have had that first. The general discussion took place first and then we went through the items. The Deputy now wants a general discussion over again.
I did not suggest that.
There is no Deputy, except Deputy Heffernan, who is not perfectly satisfied that this Estimate has been thrashed in and out, up and down.
I have not been very troublesome on this Estimate. I have not asked many questions.
Vote put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin. Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolcatha.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
Tellers: Tá, Séamus O Dóláin and Liam Mac Sioghaird. Níl: Donnchadh O Guaire and Mícheál O hIfearnain.