Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 11

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 62.—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,625,555 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Puist agus Telegrafa agus Seirbhísí áirithe eile atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le Telefóna.

That a sum not exceeding £1,625,555 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and of certain other Services administered by that office, including Telephones.

The full amount of the Vote for the financial year is £2,425,555 representing a decrease on last year's Vote of £54.370. Net revenue is estimated at £1,755,560, showing a nominal deficit of £669,995 to be provided by the Exchequer. This compares with a deficit of £730,935 in the Estimates of receipts and expenditure of the past financial year.

It should be understood, however, that the Post Office Estimates, Appropriation Accounts and the figures appearing in the Finance Accounts of the Saorstát do not represent and are not intended to represent the true financial results of the Post Office operations for the year, although it is possible they will be quoted as if they do by the uninformed. They are simply cash statements, and consequently ignore many items that would be taken into account by a commercial concern. The expenditure of other Government Departments on our behalf, such as the Office of Public Works and the Stationery Office is excluded, and credit is not taken for the numerous services rendered without payment by the Post Office for other Government Departments. A detailed list of such services is given in Appendix E of the Estimates. The correct result of the financial transactions of the Post Office can only be judged from the Commercial Accounts which are published annually after audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. An examination of the Commercial Accounts from the time of the change of Government should be of interest to Deputies and to the public generally if a true realisation of the financial position of the Post Office is desired. Such an examination will show that a deficit of £1,108,260 in the financial year 1922-23 has been reduced from year to year as follows:—

Year.

Deficit.

1922-23

£1,108,260

1923-24

773,749

1924-25

471,974

1925-26

413,967

1926-27

379,756

1927-28(Estimated)

362,200

1928-29(Estimated)

329,000

The years 1922-25 were in certain respects abnormal. Owing to the disturbed conditions existing in the country Post Office business suffered somewhat, and it is probable that the revenue received was considerably less than it would have been had the country been free from internal trouble during that time. Within that period also was carried out an elaborate scheme of retrenchment, reorganisation and curtailment of services, which resulted in a very considerable saving in expenditure. But economies without material reduction in public services are no longer possible, and for normal savings carried out by a constant watch over expenditure and organisation within the Department it would be well to examine the accounts from April, 1925. It will be observed that a saving of £142,974 will, it is expected, be effected at the end of the present financial year. Portion of this saving is due to a drop in the cost of living figures, with corresponding results on the total of salaries and wages, but a considerable proportion is due to the efforts made within the Department to secure that the utmost economy is obtained commensurate with an efficient service to the public.

The Post Office is concerned in the provision of three main services— postal, telegraph and telephone. The postal, which is the parent service, is the most important of the three. It has not been affected by the speedier service of the telegraph, and the telephone service may be regarded rather as an auxiliary than a competitor. The postal service allows of frequent, constant and cheap communication between all members of the community, and its utility does not appear to be lessened by the competition of the quicker but more expensive methods of communication. At present the postal service yields about 75 per cent. of the total revenue earned. The earlier heavy loss is being constantly reduced, and the revenue is increasing, slowly, perhaps, but steadily. The loss on postal services in 1922-23 was £656,200. In 1924-25 it was £290,000, and it is estimated at the end of the present year to be reduced to £102,500. An analysis of the financial results of the operations of the various services performed by the Post Office may be of interest. The figures must be taken with a certain amount of reserve and as being only fairly reliable approximations. Our services are so interwoven and entwined that it would be impossible to arrive at an apportionment which might be regarded as absolutely reliable. The results are for the year 1926-27:—

Gain.

Loss.

£

£

Letters

299,000

Printed Papers

124,000

Newspapers

70,000

Post Cards

7,000

Parcels

90,000

Registered Correspondence

145,000

Money Orders

1,000

Postal Orders

1,000

I do not like to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but it is practically impossible to get any information here.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would read his statement a little more slowly.

The statement is rather lengthy and I am afraid that I have been inclined to take it rather too quickly. It will be seen that letter mail matter yields a profit while the other services are conducted at a loss. This is not unusual and corresponds roughly to the postal situation in Great Britain. It will be observed that the cheaper lines of postal business are conducted at a loss, and may be regarded as being subsidised by the letter service. They, however, serve a useful purpose to the community and may justifiably be regarded as auxiliary and ancillary to the main service.

The expenditure of the telegraph service has been reduced, but revenue is steadily falling. The loss for the present year is estimated at £167,500 as against £406,000 in the year 1922-23 and £178,500 for the year 1924-25. The telegraphs which are gradually yielding to the telephones may be regarded as being in a transitional and declining stage. It may be taken, however, that although a declining service it is not a dying service, and will remain essential to the comfort and welfare of certain members of the community. Owing to the necessity for maintaining our lines in good working order and the impossibility of reducing staff in exact proportion to the declining revenue our unit loss on telegraphs may possibly be greater as traffic decreases. On the other hand, a traffic increase, while decreasing the unit loss, might possibly increase the gross loss. It may be of interest to note that the telegraph has never been a paying branch of the Post Office service. In Great Britain at the time when the sixpenny rate was introduced in 1885 the telegraph service was being run at a loss, and the increased traffic of twenty million telegrams per annum did not suffice to balance the increased deficit due to the lower rate. It must be borne in mind that operating expenses have increased at a greater proportion than charges. As an instance, in 1885 the average pay of a telegraphist was round 6d. per hour. It is now about 1/6. Modern inventions for facilitating transmission and reception have to an extent counterbalanced the increase. Conditions in the Saorstát do not, however, lend themselves to the fullest exploitation of the most modern methods. Telephone competition has extracted from the telegraphs the most remunerative portion of the work, which is short-distance telegrams. The long-distance and more difficult, but less-paying messages, continue to fall to the telegraph end.

The average revenue per telegram is 1/3½, but the cost to the Department is 2/5, so that the Exchequer has to contribute the sum of 1/1½ towards each telegram sent. The increased minimum fee of 1/6 a telegram introduced by the Minister for Finance in his recent Budget will have the effect of cutting a substantial amount of the loss on the service, but there will still remain a very considerable deficit. This cannot be recovered as a result of internal economies, but it is felt that in view of the changing circumstances the whole position requires to be specially watched and reviewed and arrangements are being made to have this done. It should be mentioned that in the statistical statements furnished in this estimate no cognisance is taken of the effect of the imposition of the additional charge of 6d. to the minimum rate for telegrams. This change is estimated to effect a saving of about £66,000. This saving will be reflected in the deficit shown on the telegraphs and in the deficit shown on the general accounts. It will reduce the total estimated deficit on the general accounts for the present year to £263,000

On the telephone service the amount of loss is smaller than on the other services. It is estimated at £42,000. This loss is greater than that existing some years ago when the reduction in telephone charges was introduced. The reduced charges did not bring about the new business which was anticipated at the time, but there has been a gradual increase. There has been extensive development so as to provide facilities which were absent and to extend existing ones. This heavy initial expenditure which is borne on Telephone Capital Account, has the effect of increasing, temporarily at least, our losses as interest charges have to be borne before the full effect of the development is felt financially.

The finances of telephone extension are somewhat complicated and difficult to understand. Ordinarily in an expanding business, proportionately to expansion, expenses on the unit basis have a tendency to decrease as expansion takes place. This rule does not apply to the telephone services. Overhead expenses do not, of course, increase in the same proportion as the number of telephones. The cost of apparatus tends to fall. The savings effected on these are offset to a large extent, if not altogether, by the increased expense in cost of the plant necessary to provide ready means of communication between the increased number of users of the telephone. Exchange plant and staff increase out of proportion to the number of added subscribers. This applies to all countries where there has been telephone development. In effect the advantage which the user of the telephone gets from development and extension is not cheaper rates, but an increased service, i.e., a greater number of persons with whom he can talk.

Charges of inefficiency and complaints of delay in effecting calls are sometimes made. In this connection it should be remembered that the telephone system when handed over in 1922 was in many respects obsolete. Before the acquisition of the telephone system by the British Government the National Telephone Company, in anticipation of the change, naturally spent as little as possible on renewal or modernisation of plant and equipment. The necessary improvements in order to make the service efficient were not carried out, particularly in Ireland, before the outbreak of the Great War. Consequently on taking over it was in a very defective condition. Attention has been steadily given to providing the required improvements. Exchange equipment in many exchanges has been modernised, and the provision of up-to-date equipment for all exchanges is part of the policy of our Department. Considerable improvement has undoubtedly been effected already, as the following figures will show:—

AVERAGE TIME TAKEN BY OPERATORS.

1926

1927

1928.

To answer calls (seconds)

13.

10.6

8.

To discontinue on completion of conversation (secs.)

16.9

10.8

7.9

Percentage of originating calls ineffective at first attempt. Due to wanted number being engaged

11.1

11.3

11.4

Due to “no reply”

1.4

2.4

2.1

Due to other causes

12.9

7.3

5.8

Total

25.5

21.

19.3

These figures are the result of service observations at Dublin Central Exchange. Ineffective calls are often due to the fault of the subscribers. Many subscribers do not make arrangements for the provision of sufficient lines to avoid overloading with resultant ineffective calls owing to "number engaged." Modern equipment and automatic exchanges will gradually lessen the number of ineffective calls. An automatic exchange has been installed at Ship Street, with provision for 1,440 subscribers. Merrion automatic exchange, with provision for 1,800, is now functioning. The Stowger automatic equipment was used and has proved satisfactory. A questionnaire was issued to all subscribers shortly after the introduction and, in general, satisfaction has been expressed, and many useful and practical suggestions emanated from subscribers. In Dublin our policy in regard to exchange development is to instal automatics where new exchanges are required in place of manual exchanges which are becoming obsolete and worn out in regard to equipment. We do not intend to discard modern manual exchanges which have still an effective life.

In regard to our development policy in the areas outside of the larger cities, we have now extended the telephone to almost every town of any consequence in the Saorstát. It is to be regretted, however, that the number of subscribers has not increased in proportion to the expansion. This may be attributed to various causes, the principal being as follows: (a) Depressed economic conditions; (b) Absence of the "telephone habit" and (c) The scattered population consequent on a thinly populated agricultural country. Now that we are coming to the end of our extension policy on a large scale it is our intention to devote more attention to an effort to encourage the formation of the "telephone habit." Granted improved economic conditions, it is hoped that a campaign of intensive canvassing will cause a much increased use of the telephone. Merchants and others in the smaller towns will recognise that it is a case of not "Can I afford a telephone?" but "Can I afford to do without a telephone?" It is an extraordinary commentary on our business habits to find that great financial institutions such as the Joint Stock Bank scarcely avail themselves of the telephone service at all. The attempt to develop the party line system in the rural areas has not proved a great success. So far only seven party lines have been established.

On the telephone question a few figures in illustration of world telephone development may be of interest:

Telephones per 100 of population.

United States

14.8

Canada

12.2

Mexico

0.4

Belgium

2.

Denmark

9.2

Poland

0.4

Australia

6.1

New Zealand

9.2

Irish Free State

0.7

Great Britain

3.

These figures are from a publication issued by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and bring forcibly before our minds our backwardness in telephone development. A circuit arrangement has been evolved which gives Monaghan, Clones and Belturbet direct access to Dublin, and those towns are no longer dependent on offices in the Six Counties for a telephone outlet. Twenty-six new telephone exchanges were opened during the year. Since the beginning of the present financial year fourteen exchanges have been opened and the early opening of seven more is anticipated. Provision has been made in the 1928-29 Estimates for the opening of eighteen exchanges. It is anticipated that 125 call offices will have been provided before the end of the current financial year. The total number of call offices in the Saorstát will then be round 1,100. The number of subscribers' stations it is anticipated will have increased by approximately 1,460 during the past year.

During the past year complete underground schemes were carried out in Waterford, Kilkenny, Galway, Greystones and Castleknock, and the old, heavily-loaded open wire routes recovered. Provision is made in these Estimates for complete underground schemes in Wexford and Carlow, where the old routes are becoming inadequate. Arrangements are now being made to extend the number of kiosks in Dublin and suburbs. Regarding general post office business I now give figures showing the amount of business handled by the Post Office during the year:—

Posted.

Delivered.

Letters

115,000,000

124,000,000

Printed Papers

37,000,000

54,000,000

Inland Postcards

8,000,000

9,000,000

Parcels

4,700,000

5,100,000

Newspapers

9,600,000

10,000,000

Will the Minister realise that he is talking in millions and it might induce him to go a little bit slower?

I do not wish to delay too long.

The Parliamentary Secretary should not mind the delay. We will have still further delay if he has to repeat the figures.

It will be noted that the number of articles delivered in all cases exceeds the number posted which indicates that a larger number of foreign-posted matter enters this country than goes out. The posted figures for all mail matter show an increase except in regard to parcels in which there is a slight falling-off. The delivered figures show an increase in printed papers, newspapers and parcels and a decrease in letters.

Telegrams.

Forwarded.

Delivered.

Ordinary

3,083,292

3,120,237

Press Pages

34,163

124,429

It will be observed in connection with the above that the quantity of Press material sent from outside greatly exceeds the quantity despatched internally. An increase in the charge for Press messages would stimulate foreign Press material at the expense of home news, with consequent material and moral reactions.

Cash-on-Delivery System. — Number of parcels dealt with—12,991.

Value of—

£

Money Orders issued

5,477,503

,,,, paid

7,177,626

Postal Orders issued

1,397,108

,,,, paid

1,636,871

Savings Bank deposits

1,092,244

Savings Bank withdrawals—

Free State

976,585

Great Britain

693,297

Postal Drafts, Old Age Pensions, Army and other drafts paid

4,425,321

Savings Certificate sold

820,991

,,,,repaid

186,698

Licences (Revenue, Dog and Wireless) issued

607,886

The value of money orders issued to countries outside An Saorstát was £779,000, while the value of money orders received from other countries was £2,469,000. A large proportion of the latter amount consisted of American remittances.

Telephones.

Trunks—Number of miles working, wire

11,600

Local Service, do

66,734

Do.Number of calls

20,000,000

In view of a possible public demand for a reduction in the postal rates to the British level, the following figures showing the estimated loss in revenue which would result from such a change may be of interest:—

Letters.

Reduction from 2d. to 1½d. (min.) and adoption of the British rates

£240,318

Printed Papers.Reduction to British rates

£7,731

It will be seen that a reduction in the letter charges to the British rates would result in more than doubling the present loss in the working of the Post Office. This does not take account of possible increase in amount of posted matter.

The cash-on-delivery service is now on a permanent basis. The extent to which it is availed of is still small, but there is a gradual increase. The advantages of the system seem to be appreciated principally in Dublin. As its inherent advantages become recognised a considerable expansion is hoped for.

The extended use of motor transport for the conveyance of mails is being developed, both as regards contract services and Departmental vehicles driven by postmen.

Since last year the number of motorcar contracts has been increased by three, and the total of services now is ninety. The number of Departmental motor mail vans in use is 57, against 43 at the corresponding period last year.

Seven additional Departmental motor vans will be introduced during the next few weeks. These services are proving most satisfactory and economical.

Postal relations with foreign countries continue to develop in order to ensure the expeditious despatch and delivery of mails. In all cases in which the amount of correspondence available justifies that course direct despatches are made up. Such despatches are now exchanged between the Saorstát and, in addition to most European countries, the United States, Canada, Newfoundland and Argentine Republic, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, India, the Federated Malay States, the Straits Settlements, China and Hong Kong.

Parcel mails are still being forwarded by direct steamship in every case in which steamship facilities are available.

The fullest possible use continues to be made of the Cobh route, and during the last year forty-two thousand sacks of Saorstát mails passed through that port—an increase of over one thousand sacks on the traffic for the year 1926.

In addition to the money order conventions already in force with the Governments of the United States, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Australia, India and South Africa, steps are being taken to set up similar agreements with Italy, Belgium and France.

The main telegraph routes are in good working order, and the only serious dislocations of the services were those occasioned by snowstorms in the County Mayo in December last.

During the year 1927 the contracts placed by the Stores Branch were allocated as follows:—

£322,716 on Saorstát manufactured articles.

£72,695 on British manufactured articles.

£46,722 on articles produced in other countries.

The value of uniform clothing and supplies on repayment to other Government Departments during 1927 was £183,899, which is approximately £50,000 greater than the value of stores supplied in the previous year.

During the year 1927 the following quantities of woollen and cotton piece goods were examined:—

Woollen

293,343 yards.

Cotton

491,574,,

The canvas required for the manufacture of mail bags was, with the exception of 15,000 yards, obtained in the Saorstát.

The staff employed in January, 1928, numbered 12,585 as compared with 12,622 last year. Apart from part-time postmen and sub-postmasters the major portion of the staff consists of Civil Service certificated officers. The employment of such a large number of part-time auxiliary postmen is rendered necessary by the peculiar conditions of the country so as to afford delivery in rural areas at a reasonably early hour by an arrangement of short post routes radiating from the various delivery offices. Longer routes warranting the employment of full-time postmen would extend deliveries well into the afternoon to the detriment of the services rendered rural residents, and in many cases postmen who collect correspondence for post would miss connection with the outgoing mail by reason of their late return from delivery.

One unfortunate effect of the use of so many part-time postmen, on the popular mind, is to create the idea that the Post Office delivery staff have an exceedingly soft time, getting a full day's pay for a few hours' work. Persons with this idea should know that a large proportion of our outdoor staff is part-time and only paid by the hour.

Discipline in the service is well maintained. Within the comparatively short period in which I have had responsibility for the administration of the Post Office it has not been possible for me to obtain a complete knowledge of staff efficiency and courtesy, but from my observations and the information available I am satisfied that the general standard is high. The courtesy of our staff recently brought forth a highly flattering testimonial from a leading American journalist. This is a reputation which it is expected to maintain.

Encouragement is given to existing officials to acquire a good knowledge of the Irish language and many officials are attending classes held under the auspices of either the Gaelic League or the Education Department. Last year an examination for Learnerships was held and as a result 15 candidates from the Gaeltacht—all Irish speakers—and 61 candidates from outside the Gaeltacht were successful. Many of the latter candidates have a good knowledge of Irish and only one failed to get at least 50 per cent. in Irish at the examination.

Officers stationed within the Gaeltacht who are competent to do their work in Irish are being required to do so as far as possible and an extension of this principle is aimed at.

It is generally accepted that the Post Office is amongst Government Departments the nearest approach there is to a commercial institution, and the one which should therefore be administered as far as possible on a self-supporting basis. It renders necessary services to the public, in regard to which it is generally speaking in a monopolistic position. In return it receives payment at fixed rates. It may be contended that the Post Office should be regarded purely as a business organisation and that it should be expected to pay its way. In this connection, however, in the Saorstát there is a good deal of loose thinking and uninformed talking. There is no doubt the Post Office could be placed on a paying basis—but at a cost. Owing to the fact that the Irish services formed an integral portion of the British system in the past, it so happened that we secured the full services and advantages which were granted to that country. The British system, which is a paying service, it must be remembered, catered for a thickly populated area, principally commercial and industrial. There was truly an outer fringe of thinly populated country, mostly agricultural in nature. It was considered expedient to apply the same services to all portions of the countries, even though a sectional analysis would show that the service to the rural areas was subsidised by the services in the urban districts. It might be argued, in fact, that the entire service stood together as one conglomerate whole and that any effort to differentiate between services rendered would so affect the whole structure as to be not only impolitic but uneconomic. During this period the Irish branch of the service was regarded much as that given to one of the large agricultural areas of England, and taken as a separate unit would have been financially insolvent. The establishment of separate control in the Free State meant in effect the cutting off of portion of the uneconomic fringe of the British service, with in addition the increased cost of central and overhead administration expenses which it is impossible to avoid in dealing with a smaller economic unit. It should, therefore, be clear that those who expect us to compete on level terms with the British administration are asking for the impossible.

It became clear to those in control after the change of administration that if the Post Office service in the Free State was to be administered in anything approaching an economic fashion, it would be necessary to make reorganisations and re-adjustments so as to bring the service into line with the economic resources of the country. Therefore, during the past recent years the internal working of the Department has been reorganised and overmen hauled as a result of which substantial economies have been effected. The major economies which were effected in the early days of our administration were reasonably obvious and did not involve the same extensive examination of departmental expenditure which was essential to securing the progressive improvement in our financial position which has taken place. While every effort is still used to economise, it is evident that without further impairment of essential services substantial savings cannot be made, and that the minor economies which may be brought about by the most careful scrutinising of all spending, cannot have any appreciable effect in reducing the present deficit.

It must further be borne in mind that while the Post Office is regarded as a commercial organisation it suffers from certain disabilities inherent in Parliamentary control, which add to the expense of administration and subtract from its efficiency.

Owing to the fact of Parliamentary control the records of the Post Office have to be kept in such a manner that even the most trivial happening within the service is recorded in minutest detail, so that questions by Deputies on any phase or aspect of the administration may be answered at short notice. Information must be available as to the appointment of say a part-time postman in the remotest portion of the country, and the time of highly-paid and expert officials is taken up in preparation of information which would never be required in a business organisation of an ordinary commercial character, where there would be a proper devolution of responsibility and where servants would be judged on results to a large extent.

It is also manifestly impossible to prune down services to an absolute economic minimum. Many branches of the services rendered are not on a remunerative basis, but the cutting down and lopping off of the unremunerative limbs and branches might leave the tree as a whole in a starved and impoverished condition.

Recognising that it is not possible to clear our losses by internal economies, if we are expected to establish the service on a paying basis it is plain that we must adopt either of the following expedients or a combination of the two:—

(a) Adjusting the sectional services on a revenue basis, that is, restricting public services and facilities until they are remunerative.

(b) Increasing present charges to a paying level.

As to the first, there have been restrictions of public facilities. These aimed at cutting out or reducing the most unremunerative services, and, on the whole, the policy of retrenchment on non-paying services must be regarded in the circumstances as sound. But a too rigid retrenchment might prove unsound both politically and economically. The value of the communication services of the Post Office must be judged by other considerations in addition to those of profit and loss on the immediate service. They link the cities with the country, and while the thickly populated areas yield greater revenue, it must be recognised that in an agricultural country such as the Free State the urban residents are largely dependent for their livelihood from the produce of farming occupations, and that any restrictions in rural services would eventually react on the towns. The urban dwellers would be the slowest to recommend restrictions on that account. It may, therefore, be accepted that any further restriction of services with a view to eliminating the present loss would definitely impair the whole communication machinery of the Post Office.

As to the alternative of increasing the present rates where they are non-paying, I have pointed out that the postal is our main service. It gives the largest revenue and will continue to be the service of greatest general utility for many years at least. If postage rates are to be made remunerative they must have relation to the operative and administrative costs, and on this basis many of our present postage rates are non-paying. But rates must also have relation to the revenue yielding possibilities and they must be made attractive for revenue purposes. An increase in certain charges might in present stringent economic conditions result in such a decrease in revenue as to make our last condition worse than our first. This argument does not, of course, apply to a service such as telegraphs which is so unremunerative that even should an increase of rates have the effect of completely wiping it out there would be a gain rather than a loss, owing to a saving in administration and operating expenses.

It would appear therefore that the hope of an improvement in our financial position lies in the expectation of increased revenue which must result from an improvement in the general economic conditions in the country. We have been passing through a period of unparalleled depression. There are indications that economic conditions are improving. An improvement in conditions is always reflected in increased postal revenue.

As a general summing up of the financial position of the Post Office, it is noted that the loss borne by the Exchequer after taking over from the British exceeded £1,000,000. Portion of this deficit was perhaps abnormal, but substantially it was very high. This loss has been steadily reduced. Part of the reduction was perhaps automatic and depended on such things as the cost of living, but it may be accepted that the major reductions were brought about by retrenchment within the service and slightly improved revenue. Indications are that the improvement will be maintained. The loss is being therefore gradually and substantially reduced. It might be immediately cleared by passing the amount of the loss on to the Post Office users. This is a course which I feel sure would not find favour with the Dáil or the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary appeared to think that it was necessary that he should get through the delivery of his statement in the shortest possible time. I suggest that if the circumstances which necessitated haste on this occasion should also exist this time next year, the Parliamentary Secretary might consider posting the statement to Deputies on the morning on which the Estimate was going to be taken. If that course had been adopted on this occasion we would have saved the time which the Parliamentary Secretary took up, I think we would know a lot more about the business of the Post Office than we now know.

The Parliamentary Secretary was at great pains to stress that the Post Office Department is the nearest approach to a commercial department in the whole machinery of administration; but he appeared to think that, although it is in a sense a commercial department carrying out definite functions in relation to the public and receiving definite payment in return, it should not be criticised as such. He derided the idea of criticising it as a business concern that produces a deficit of three or four hundred thousand pounds at the end of twelve months' trading should be criticised. It is, perhaps, not unfair to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that at one time in his political career he himself maintained that the Post Office, as a business concern, should be organised and conducted as any other business concern would be organised and conducted. I do not think the case he has made out for treating it as anything else except as a business concern has been convincing. The only real argument he put forward was that, because of the necessity of supplying Deputies with answers to questions, it was necessary to maintain an extra official in his Department in order, as he pointed out, to keep a record of every officer employed in the farthest parts of the country. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has any intimate experience of business enterprises, but if he has, I think he will find it very difficult to get any business concern in this country that does not keep just as accurate a record of its employees as the Post Office. Certainly, I never heard of a business concern that did not keep such a record, and that would not be able to tell you at a moment's notice whom it had on its employment list.

The Parliamentary Secretary maintains that, to reorganise the Post Office and to put it upon a paying basis, would involve the taking of either two courses: (1) either a restriction of the services given, or (2) an increase in the charges made. I put it to him that the Post Office could be put upon a paying basis without doing either one or the other if it was reorganised on other lines. I suggest to him that that reorganisation is not taking place because a considerable amount of unemployment would result in consequence of it, as well as unpopularity to the Party of which he is now a member. I am not making that statement on my own authority. I find that his predecessor in the office of Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who had much more experience in the working of that Department than the present Parliamentary Secretary has yet had, stated:

"Were the country strong economically and in a position to give general employment to its manhood it would not be out of question to introduce a very radical change in the distribution of rural correspondence by the introduction, for instance, of the motor cycle method. One motor cycle would take the place of half a dozen men. A change of that kind would result in wholesale dismissals and additions to the ranks of the unemployed. I want to make it clear, however, that as this loss in the Post Office has been pointed to that at any time the House desires the Post Office is in a position, without very serious hardship to the country, to balance the Post Office Accounts and to cause the heavy deficit practically, if not entirely, to disappear."

Mr. Walsh, who was then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, made that statement in 1925. It is not, of course, the wish of this Party that the number of the unemployed should be increased, or that such a scheme of reorganisation involving that hardship should be undertaken now when there is no possibility of the men disemployed as a result of it being absorbed into other occupations. We have got to recognise that the loss on the Post Office is due to the fact that it is not being run as a business concern. It is being maintained to a certain extent as a means of providing relief from unemployment. Men are being maintained there not because they are really needed in the service, but because the Government could not take upon itself the onus of disemploying them. No Government could. No Government could, at any rate, until it had first of all reorganised the industries of the country, and provided the means by which the men disemployed in the postal service could be employed elsewhere. But if we have to accept the position that the Post Office is not a paying concern and cannot be under present circumstances, then let us do so frankly and not talk about it as a semi-commercial institution when, in fact, it is a semi-charitable institution.

If, on the other hand, it is felt that the Post Office should be run as a business concern, regardless of consequences, that the deficit in connection with it should be wiped out as soon as possible, and that it should be put on a paying basis, then I think that question should be approached as the owner of an ordinary commercial enterprise here would approach it. If the Parliamentary Secretary were the owner of the Post Office, if it were his private property, if he were dependent upon it for his livelihood by producing a revenue at the end of the year, I think he would be able to do it. He would be able to do it, as any ordinary business man would be able to do it, by getting his accounts examined carefully, by looking at his expenditure and seeing whether it could be reduced, and by examining his revenue to find out where it could be increased.

Let us, for example, take the question of revenue. We find that of all the different activities of the Post Office only one is a paying proposition —that is, the collection and delivery of letters. The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that that particular service produced a revenue of £299,000 last year. In view of the general tenor of his statement and the figures which he has given us—those, at any rate, that we were able to catch—it is out of the question, I think, to hope for any reduction in the letter rate. Judging by the figures published in the finance accounts, a reduction of even one halfpenny in the ordinary twopenny postal charge would involve a loss of practically £300,000. It would wipe out the revenue produced last year and leave that service running at a loss.

The Deputy, I think, misunderstands the figures I quoted. The £299,000 quoted was a gain on the letter postal service. It is not a revenue at all. It is the excess of revenue over expenditure.

What I really meant to say was that that was the net result on that particular service at the end of the year. The net result of that particular activity in the Post Office left £299,000 in hand at the end of the year, but every other service in the Post Office was run at a loss. Let us examine some of the other services. As regards printed papers, there was a loss of £124,000. The figures given us by the Parliamentary Secretary indicate an excess of printed papers delivered over those posted—that is, that the printed papers which come from abroad are equal to almost one-half of the number posted here. In other words, a substantial part of the loss upon printed papers comes from the distribution in this country of circulars mainly from the great British commercial firms. I do not know whether the International Conventions to which the State is committed necessitate the delivery of these letters at rates fixed in foreign countries, or whether it is not possible for the Post Office here to increase the rate for delivery on printed papers from abroad. I would not suggest, and I do not think it would be advisable, that the rate for the delivery of printed papers posted here should be increased, but we would have no objection whatever to an additional charge being applied to printed papers coming from abroad.

We find that on the delivery of newspapers a loss of £70,000 has been incurred. Again, we find that there is a big increase in the number delivered to the number posted—which indicates that a substantial number of these papers also come from abroad. Whether they come from abroad or not, the fact is that the State is losing the sum of £70,000 a year upon the delivery of newspapers. That is a matter that, I suggest, we should consider. After all, it is identical, in effect, to a subsidy to a commercial concern. I think that the officials of the Post Office might take into account the advisability of increasing the charge in that connection. If by doing so they produce the result of wiping out this loss of £70,000 a year, it would be worth doing. The distribution of newspapers through the post is not an essential feature in the life of the community.

In the case of post cards, there was a loss of £7,000. The Parliamentary Secretary in his statement did not, as far as I could catch what he said, indicate how this loss had arisen on a service which, I think, two or three years ago produced a gain of about £3,000. It is now being run at a loss.

Since then there was a change made in the rates charged.

I understand that. I think it was anticipated at the time that increased business would be done, and in consequence that there would be no loss as a result of the change made in the rates. If, however, the increased business has not taken place it would explain the loss. However, it is a small matter, and not an item on which we would suggest that an increased charge should be made. The loss in that connection can be counterbalanced by the gain on the letter post. The same thing applies in the case of parcels as newspapers. A large number of these parcels come from abroad. Some time ago the Post Office imposed a delivery charge on parcels for the purpose of restricting the trade in parcels from abroad, but apparently that has not had the effect it was hoped it would have, as the business is going on as much as ever. The Parliamentary Secretary said, I think, that there is this year an increase in the number delivered over the number posted as compared with last year. That would indicate that the number of parcels coming from England has been increased. Most traders in this country deplore very much the tendency to shop through the post with English firms, and buying goods through advertisements in the "Daily Mail" and papers of that kind. If that is to be done at all it should be done in a manner which would not involve a State subsidy. If the trade in parcels from abroad is to go on at a cost to the State of £90,000, that is a matter which the Post Office authorities should take into consideration. If the reduction of the loss would involve an increase in the delivery charge it should be done. I know that is not a very popular suggestion, but we cannot afford the loss in this service, and to facilitate business being transacted which results in a loss to the shopkeepers of this country.

There is also a loss in registered parcels, money orders and postal orders. The loss in money orders is small amounting to only £1,000. The poundage was respectively £16,000 and £21,000. An increased business in this would wipe out the loss altogether. The same thing applies to registered parcels as to ordinary parcels. The telegraph service is run at a loss of £167,000. The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that it is a dying service, and that year after year the use which is being made of the telegraph system is declining. The minimum charge for telegrams has been increased to 1/6, and we presume that that additional charge will have the effect, even if it was not the intention, of killing the service altogether, or going largely towards doing so. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is justified in estimating that it is going to bring in the revenue which he forecasts by merely halving the revenue from that service last year and saying it will result in increased revenue from the increased charge. I think it is likely the telegraph service will go into disuse except for Press purposes as a result of the additional charge. In connection with the loss in the telegraph service, I would like to point out that a considerable portion of it is due to the sending of Press telegrams at reduced rates. It was, I think, estimated last year that the loss in the sending of Press telegrams would amount to £18,000. That is a fairly considerable portion of the total of £167,000.

If the Minister had decided that the loss in the telegraph service is to be met by an increased charge to the ordinary user I do not see why he should not also decide to increase the charge in the case of Press telegrams. Again, this is in the nature of a subsidy to commercial concerns. The loss of £18,000 is a serious item for Deputies to take into account. Whether or not we can afford to lose annually £18,000 in order to provide facilities for certain commercial firms in Ireland is a matter on which strong views will be held. The loss on the telephone service is £42,000. The Parliamentary Secretary has given no explanation as to how the loss has arisen. I think I am correct in saying that before the recent reduction in rates the telephone service was a paying service, that in the year prior to the reduction there was a gain of £17,000, and that each year since instead of the loss being reduced it has been increased, growing from £3,000 in 1926 to £42,000 last year. I do not know if that is correct, but these are the figures I have been able to get. The telephone service was a paying service till 1924 or 1925. The service has been extended and there must be some reason for this growing loss upon it. It was a paying service at a time when Ministers were fond of maintaining that the state of prosperity of the country was much less than it has now become, while last year the loss amounted to the considerable sum of £42,000.

No doubt the disuse of the telegraph system will result in an increased use of the telephone, although not, I think, to the extent to which the Parliamentary Secretary has anticipated. As an individual who has occasion to make use frequently of both the telegraph and telephone systems I do not agree altogether that disuse of the telegraph will result in an increased use of the telephone, which the Parliamentary Secretary stated will follow. If, for example, I wanted to send ten messages throughout the country in a hurry it would be much more convenient for me to send them by telegram than by telephone, because there is usually a considerable delay in putting through trunk call. It would take five or six hours to get through ten messages by telephone, but if they were despatched by telegraph at once they would reach their destination in three or four hours. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might take into consideration the considerable delay in putting through trunk calls. No doubt the delay is due to overcrowding of the wires. It might be possible to relieve that, and it is necessary if the telephone service is to be brought up to the standard. The cost of sending a telegram even at the increased price of 1/6 will be much less than the cost of an ordinary three minutes trunk call to distant parts of the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the general courtesy of the staff, and I must agree with him to a very large extent; but at the same time I would like to know if he ever had the experience of ringing on the 'phone for about ten minutes without getting a reply, asking the operator if she had wakened up, and then finding out whether she had the courtesy he has referred to? I frequently notice that between the hours of 8 and 11 at night it is very difficult to get replies from the Exchange. That does not apply throughout the day, when the staffs are at full strength, but between the night hours I have mentioned it is difficult to get immediate response on the Exchange. That was particularly noticeable during the period of the General Elections, possibly because the wires were being overworked. Personally I believe I got an extra ten years added on to my age as a result of my experience on the 'phone during that period. If, however, we go through the various activities of the Department which either do or might produce revenue we find that an increase can be effected. I do not know in this matter how far the international conventions that exist would restrict the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary, but we believe that in the delivery of parcels and circulars from abroad, and in the delivery of newspapers, an increased charge would be justified so as to wipe out the annual existing loss. The Parliamentary Secretary as proprietor, so to speak, of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, having, we presume, gone through the items which might produce revenue, might turn to the expenditure side of his account and see where economies were possible. He would look at his staff, for example, if he were proprietor of his Department, anxious to make it a paying concern, and he would produce a different Estimate to that which he has produced this year.

I notice that there are increases of considerable magnitude in a number of branches of the Department. This year the number of officials in the Stores Branch has gone up by 14; the female staff has increased by 50 and the headquarters staff by 53. Perhaps it would interest the Parliamentary Secretary to know the gradual changes of staff which have taken place in his Department since 1923. There have been fluctuations—increases in some sections and decreases in others. The figures indicate that while there has been a steady and considerable increase in all the headquarters staff, there has been a similarly steady and considerable decrease in the number of postmen and others who actually serve the requirements of the people. In the headquarters office a staff of 313 rose each year as follows: 313, 320, 337, 352, 353 and reached 406 last year. In the Secretary's and Solicitor's office a staff of 112 in 1923 went up as follows: 112, 119, 136, 140, 139, 131. In the Accountant's office the staff increased as follows: 200, 200, 200, 211, 213, 273. In the Stores Department the staff numbered 114 in 1923 and it went up as follows: 114, 136, 149, 145, 150, 164. In the Engineering Branch the increase was as follows: 489, 516, 554, 569, 569, 570. There was a steady increase in all the headquarters offices, but there was a decrease in the number of officials employed in provincial and metropolitan offices—a decrease in the actual number of postmen engaged in delivering letters. Although there are less postmen working, it takes an increased and more expensive staff to deal with them. There are some 14 officials in the Department drawing remuneration exceeding £1,000, and a number of officials in and around and just under the £1,000 mark.

If the Post Office is to be put on a paying basis and maintained as a commercial institution, if the annual deficit is to be wiped out, and the money saved to the taxpayers, or released so that it can be devoted to more useful work, it will be necessary to carry out that drastic re-organisation at the top. It will not be necessary altogether, as Mr. Walsh said two or three years ago, to disemploy men at the bottom, but there certainly can be considerable economy effected at the top. That combined with the various suggestions I have made for increasing the revenue, if they were put into operation, would we think result in a considerable reduction in the deficit next year.

There is one other matter I should like to mention. The Post Office more than any other Government Department has adopted and put rigorously into operation the policy of giving work only to ex-members of the National Army. I have had many cases brought to my notice, not merely of competent men being refused work because they were not ex-members of the National Army, but of men actually in employment being dismissed in order to make room for ex-Army men. The Government has adopted that policy and apparently has decided to maintain it. They should seriously consider whether or not that is wise. The bitterness that results in many parts of the country from this preference is considerable and will do its part in preventing the speedy development of prosperity here, because prosperity can only come when all these causes of bitterness have been eradicated. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether or not it is going to be the policy of the Department to keep up that preferential treatment next year, or whether employment in this service, which is paid for by all the people in the State regardless of political opinion, is to be open to every person regardless of his political opinion. We have had Ministers talking here during the last two days about "Our Army" and "Our this and that." It is well to bear in mind that it is the people of this State, including the half-million people who voted for the Deputies on this side of the House, who are paying for these services, and they are entitled to the same consideration as the people who supported any other Party. Certainly, where the giving of State work is concerned, no political consideration should be taken into account. I should like to have a definite statement as to whether or not that policy is to be continued. Certainly, if the Government decides to continue this policy it will be waste of time for the President or anyone else, in Cork or elsewhere, to be appealing for a united effort amongst all Parties for the general good of the country.

I do not propose to go into details in the discussion of this Estimate. Deputy Lemass has covered the ground exhaustively. But there is one point arising out of the main criticism of Deputy Lemass that I should like to refer to. It is not the first time that the argument has been used here that the Post Office should be run as a commercial concern. In fact, the argument has been used about Government offices generally. It is a rather fashionable argument to say that these things should be approached from a purely business point of view. I think the Parliamentary Secretary himself held the view one time that the Post Office should be a purely business concern, but I dare say it is his association with the actual working of the Post Office that has induced him to alter his mind.

I wonder!

Mr. O'CONNELL

The first thing we should ask ourselves in connection with this argument is: Are we running the Post Office as a profit-making institution, or do we regard it as a public service—a utility service? There can be no doubt as to what is the answer to that question. If Deputy Lemass, as a business-man, were to approach the Post Office with the one idea in his mind that it was a business concern, to be run on business lines, with the object of returning a profit to the person who was running it, he would look around to see in what direction he could run the business at a profit. The net result, the certain result, of an examination of that kind would be that services which are not profitable would be cut off. Deputy Lemass as a business-man would not deliver letters in Connemara very possibly, if his idea were to make the Post Office a purely business concern, because it is not profitable to deliver letters there.

A business-man in the position that the Deputy is referring to would not run the Post Office at all. I am presuming that the Post Office has to be maintained, and that these services have to be given at the cheapest possible cost.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is a different point of view altogether from Deputy Lemass's main argument, as I understood it, in any case. If the idea is that the present service must be maintained and still run as a business proposition, that only means that there might be some possible reorganisation. I agree with Deputy Lemass, if that is his point of view, but certainly that was not the point as I understood it, nor the point that is urged frequently by people outside this House, and sometimes by people inside this House, and which comes to this, quite plainly, that the cost of the delivery of letters in rural areas is much more than what is actually paid for the service by the persons who post these letters, and that will be seen right through the whole concern. If we were looking at it from the point of view of what would pay there may possibly be no delivery of letters outside towns of 500 or 600 inhabitants. Letters would be sent to a central post office and people living round these areas would be expected to call for their letters. It certainly would not pay from the point of view of making a profit, to deliver letters in the rural areas, and it is the rural areas that would suffer. I am afraid that Deputy Lemass, when making these suggestions, or Deputy Flinn speaking some time ago of an accountant and superman who would reorganise the Government Departments on a purely business basis, was forgetting the point of view of the rural dweller, who is also a taxpayer, and is entitled to the benefits of the public service.

I would like to stress that point of view, because it has been emphasised on various occasions when this Estimate was before the House. We must keep in mind that the main object of the Post Office is not to show a profit on the year's working, but to render service as cheaply as possible and at the lowest amount of expenditure. It is this principle that underlies many of our public services. We, on these benches, have often demanded the nationalisation of public services like the railway, because we believe that the fact that they are purely or largely profit-making concerns prevents them rendering to the public the service that ought to be rendered to the public if they had an object other than profit-making. I just intervened in the debate to stress that point. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has come round to the point of view expressed by the Labour Party on various occasions when this Estimate was under consideration. I note, too, that he feels that a reduction of from twopence to three halfpence for letters is no longer possible, although he held different views some time ago.

I intervene for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the telephone service in the rural districts.

That brings us to the sub-heads. I think we ought to take the sub-heads if we, take it that the general debate has concluded. (Deputies: "No, no.") Then I think we ought to continue the general debate until it is concluded.

Perhaps I might point out there is no separate sub-head for telephones in the rural districts.

Is there not a particular sub-head for telephones?

Not particularly. The various costs are combined under the general heading.

Very good; Deputy Kennedy then will proceed.

For instance, if you want to get a telephone call from Mullingar to, say, Oldcastle, which is very near, you have to get linked up from Dublin. It often takes an hour to link up. Take a village like Castlepollard, only eight miles from Oldcastle. Again, it often takes an hour, and the same applies to places such as Navan, Drogheda and Dundalk. It would be a great benefit to the public if there were direct services on such routes as that. I believe it obtains in districts in the west and south.

I want to bear out what Deputy Lemass said about telephone calls after eight o'clock. Not in election times only, but in ordinary times, to get a call after 8 o'clock you will often ring for half an hour and get no response. I remember one particular instance, where people were ringing up for an hour before getting any response. Another matter is where you have a number of outlying post offices around a town like Mullingar and you want a telephone call, you find a constant buzzing interruption. In the middle of a conversation you find a telegram being sent, so that your conversation is entirely interrupted. That, I think, could be easily prevented.

There are a number of districts, with fairly large villages in the centre, that have constantly applied to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for telephones. Since the telephone is superseding the telegram, I think it is up to the Minister to facilitate those districts, because the charge for telegrams and their delivery will be altogether uneconomic from this forward, especially when you add the porterage to the 1s. 6d.

I think it is very much to be regretted that the telephone service, which is such a convenience to the country generally and affords such a method of opening up the country, is not a paying concern. A couple of years ago it was just beginning to show signs of paying, as Deputy Lemass mentioned. I know quite a number of people living at long distances from call stations who would be very glad to instal the telephone if it were not so very expensive. The amount that has to be paid is excessive, and prevents them from having lines extended to them. If some method could be devised by which they would not be called upon to pay the whole amount at once, and if it could be spread over a period of years, a good many people in outlying districts far away from call offices would have the telephone installed in their houses.

The Parliamentary Secretary alluded also to the fact that the party system was not being used very much. I want to sing the praises of the party system, because I have had it now in my own house for about seventeen years. I find it of the utmost convenience. There are fourteen others joined with me in this system. It has two lines, and I do not think any of us would give it up even if we had to pay more for it than we are paying. We have to pay much more now of course than we had originally, but even so I think the convenience is so great that not one of us would give it up. Of course I know there is an idea that everybody is listening to what one is saying, but I think that anyone who has one of these telephones will soon find that it is not done. They will very soon get tired of listening, the point being that the conversation is as a rule by no means interesting.

A DEPUTY

Have you tried?

Mr. WOLFE

Yes, but a long time ago my interest ceased. But I recognise that it is of the utmost convenience, and if that was only realised I think people would use it much more than they do. It is an inestimable benefit, and I say that from very long experience of it. If people had an idea what it could be had for, and if every post office was in a position to give a comparative statement of what the telephone would cost, it would be much more used. The idea at present is that the cost is prohibitive and expensive, whereas that is not the fact. Of course it costs something, but nothing like what an extension of an entire line would cost. Some time ago the Parliamentary Secretary promised that a motor service would be put on between Naas and Tullow, taking in Ballymore Eustace and other towns which are very badly served at present. In a great many places they do not get their letters until one or two o'clock in the day. Naturally, that is a great inconvenience to them. They have borne with that fairly uncomplainingly, but their patience is coming to an end. The people there would be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would intimate when this van is going to be put on. I hope the Minister will do something about the telephone service, so as to try, if it is possible, to lessen the cost. I am sure there would be a tremendous increase in the service if the initial cost could be lessened.

I understood Deputy Lemass to say that he was of opinion that preference was shown in giving employment in the postal service, and he pleaded that such preference should not exist as between any two particular sections. By that I hope the Deputy means that no preference will be shown against what I call British ex-servicemen.

I would like to say a few words to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the extension of the telephone service to the rural districts, where, owing to the present cost of telegrams, it will be a great benefit to those who were in the habit of using the telegraph service, as they could ring up the various rural areas. I know that a good deal has been done in this respect, but I want to see a great deal more done in the future. With regard to the suggestion that people have been deprived of employment owing to politics, I think it is only right to say that I have taken up the cases of several persons in the area I represent, because I knew that they were efficient men, and in days gone by had done good work for the cause that a great many people here fought for. Owing, however, to the attitude that these people took up during the Civil War period they were deprived of their employment in the Post Office, but I am glad to be able to say—and pay a tribute to the Minister for it— that their cases have been reconsidered and they have been reinstated. One of these persons has risen in the service since his reinstatement and, at the present time, occupies a very important position. I hope that that policy will be continued. It is only fair that I should tell what has been done. I can instance several cases in which that has been done. With regard to the interruption of telephone calls, everybody knows that atmospheric conditions, stormy weather and that kind of thing, are the principal causes of the trouble. While I do not say that listening-in does not go on occasionally, I do not think it is the cause of the complaints, because anyone who has a wireless set is well aware that there are many occasions when nothing can be heard, while at other times the reception is very clear. In my opinion, that is the cause of a good deal of the trouble. I intend later to have something to say on the Broadcasting Vote.

Most of the points on this Vote that could be debated, so far as I am concerned, have been dealt with by Deputy Lemass. Deputy Murphy expressed a desire to hear from Deputy Lemass if our plea for no victimisation applied equally to British ex-servicemen. Every member of this Party has declared on every possible occasion with regard to State employment of any kind, that we do not recognise any right to distinguish between one man and another on account of previous political affiliations. We make no distinction and we want the present Government to do away with preferential treatment for employment in any Department of the Government service. Recently I gave a note to a young lad who has been idle for a long time to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs where some work was being done. He came back stating that he was told that as he was not an ex-serviceman he had not a dog's chance. That is the situation which confronts us, and we can sympathise very well with British ex-servicemen when they have to meet the same situation. There are one or two points that I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of. I do not know if he hopes to get portion of the revenue for the telegraphs by what happened to me yesterday. I received two telegrams addressed to Rathfarnham, but as Rathfarnham Post Office was closed I was charged 6d. extra because they were delivered from Dundrum. If that state of affairs is going to go on all over the country I can see not only 6d. extra being put on for every telegram that is sent but for every one that is received.

I have also to call attention to the manner in which the Telephone Department sometimes does its work. Recently in a Dublin district an individual bought a house in which there was a telephone. Immediately that he moved in he filled in a form applying for the use of this telephone, forwarding his deposit. He used the telephone for fourteen days after he had gone into the house, but on coming home one day he saw that the telephone had been removed. He asked about it and was told that it was removed by order, and that he would have it back immediately. The telephone was again installed almost immediately; then the question arose as to who was to pay for the mistake, and he was told it would be all right. Subsequently he was billed to the amount of £3 10s., which he had to pay. If genuine efforts are being made to bring about economies, to bring about a situation where unnecessary expense would not be indulged in such an instance as this should not occur. Should the Parliamentary Secretary want further details of that case he can have them.

Deputy Lemass gave figures with regard to the increase in employment in certain departments of the service. I notice that in provincial offices there is a considerable reduction of employees, and I presume that with the reduction of these employees there is also a reduction in services. I have nothing further to say, except to join with Deputy Lemass in his plea that in the Postal Department, apart from the hopes we have that it will cut down its losses and increase the services, where employment is concerned the idea should not be preference for a man because he had service in the National Army, but that employment should be given to the best man who can do the best work in the particular job.

Personally I cannot express much dissatisfaction with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am concerned only with one or two matters in the Estimate, and with one or two matters with which the Secretary dealt in his statement. However, I cannot help remarking, by way of preface, that whilst I can congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, I am reminded, as I suppose most Deputies who have at any time attended a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, of a song in one of them:—

"When I was a lad I served a term As office boy to an attorney's firm.

I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,

And I polished up the handle of the big front door.

I polished up that handle so carefulee That now I am the ruler of the Queen's Navee."

Sing it.

A complaint has been frequently made to me by very deserving and worthy citizens that they are debarred from employment in the Post Office service by reason of the fact that they have not been members of the National Army. I have every respect for the National Army; I have every respect for ex-National Army men, but at the same time I think we have arrived at a period in the history of the State when we can afford to disregard the handicaps of this kind in the case of men seeking employment. I believe that every unemployed man seeking work to-day is a man on whom the State can at all times rely in any emergency, and it is not at all right or proper that we should have this handicap placed on applicants for work in any State service, particularly in the Post Office. I do hope that that handicap will be removed, and that, whether an applicant for work be an ex-British Army man, an ex-National Army man, or a man who has not belonged to any army at all, there shall be equal opportunities for all for employment in State services. To my mind these preferences should be abolished. I think we have now arrived at a stage in our existence and history when we can afford to do so. In that connection I would remark that the particular need of the individual applying for work should be the first consideration, not alone for the State but also for private employers.

We have heard a good deal about the call for economy in the postal service. I do not know how many Deputies and how many of the general public are aware of the real economies that are being practised, and practised with success, in the post and telegraph services. The introduction of the Creed machine was a great step forward in economy, whilst not inflicting any hardships on any individuals employed in the service. That is one of the things, in my view at any rate, which should be taken into account at all times in considering how best to economise in the public services—that we should have particular regard to the point raised by Deputy O'Connell, that in the case of utility services—and I consider the postal service is a utility service—we should have particular regard to the accommodation of the general public.

There are in Cork County, near the City, many districts in which there is only one delivery per day, and many agriculturists and others have suffered much pecuniary loss on account of the curtailment of the service. Under the British regime there was a better postal service to some of these districts, and even under that regime much economy could have been effected if the rank and file of the Post Office had been consulted. It has too frequently been the case—and I very much fear that the same system is operating now—that trusting too much to certain officials has resulted in loss to the State. If you want to effect economies in the postal, telegraph and telephone services the people to consult are largely the rank and file. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would get into consultation with the various superintendents on the postal and telegraph side and discuss with them the best means of obtaining economy I think we would have far better results. The old vicious system that obtained under the former regime still continues to a very large extent. I could supply information to the Minister as to where expenses could be cut in some directions, but I would be very slow to do so, fearing that a postal or telegraph official would suffer. But it is a fact, and a fact that cannot be denied, that there are many people in the postal service who could, if they get sufficient encouragement—and when I say sufficient encouragement I mean that they would not be discouraged from giving information and that they would not suffer—give information which would tend very considerably to reduce expenses, whilst not reducing the efficiency of the service.

I am having particular regard to country districts and the way they have been served under the old régime and under the present one. Farmers, cattle dealers, and others who require from time to time to use this utility service have found it most expensive. I would like to remind the House that, after all, these people are worth considering and that we should get down to this, namely, that this is not a service in the way that the ordinary merchant would look at it. It is a public utility service and as such should be considered and, while it may represent a loss in pounds, shillings and pence, it is not a loss in the purely economic sense because you are giving in return a utility service which is, after all, one of the services which this or any other Government should provide for its citizens. I have not much to say in regard to the whole Vote except to mention that I will support it. I must say, in conclusion, that I did not think that the Parliamentary Secretary would have made such a good job of his new position. He has certainly done very well. I must congratulate him and I hope that the Farmers' Party will emulate his example and will merge themselves once and for all in Cumann na nGaedheal and then we will know where we are.

There is one matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think that I have been in communication with him upon the subject but I have been with his predecessor. Small as it may appear, it is a matter that affects my own constituency in particular. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any particular system whereby certain classes of post offices are deemed first, second or third class, but I know that for a considerable time past there has been a demand from the postal officials in Waterford, which is, I think, the fourth largest city in the Saorstát, that they should be regarded as belonging to the first class. I understand that up to this their request has not been granted. I cannot follow the reasons why. I understand that places like Blackrock are regarded in the first category and the officials, of course, get the benefit of that. If the Parliamentary Secretary has not already taken the matter into consideration I would be very grateful if he would look into the whole question because, undoubtedly, there is a distinct grievance and there is a large amount of work to be done in a city of the size and importance of Waterford, which, I think, should be regarded as much a first-class post office as, say, an office like Blackrock.

In general, I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear as to the distinct policy of the Government in regard to the working of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not know whether that Department is supposed to be a moneymaking one, or whether it is merely supposed to be run for the benefit of the community, even at a loss. It is a very important question, and upon the answer to it should depend to a large extent the cost of administration of that Department, and the methods whereby it is run. It has not always been held in all countries that the Post Office should be regarded merely as a money-making or revenue-producing business concern, but rather that it should be run for the benefit of the community at large. I would like, while on that point, to hear the Parliamentary Secretary state what effect he thinks the extra cost of telegrams will produce, so far as revenue is concerned, and also so far as the working expenses of his own Department are concerned. I doubt very much whether that extra cost will pay for itself, and whether the number of telegrams will not be seriously reduced to the extent, perhaps, that there might even be a loss of revenue.

Apart from that, I think the principle is distinctly unsound, because at the bottom of it there lies the idea that it is a step in the direction of, shall I call it, restraint of trade. The whole object of the Government should, in my view, be to facilitate communication, transport included, by every possible means between all sections of the community, but to place an extra burden upon people who desire to utilise the Post Office by sending telegrams is, I think, a wrong principle at bottom, and I doubt whether other means could not have been discovered for producing at least as much, if not greater, revenue by not placing such a burden upon these people. I am anxious, in particular, to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has any definite basis whereby he determines what shall be a first-class and what shall be a second-class post office and if so, on what grounds can he justify placing the chief post office in the City of Waterford in the category of second-class.

To me every single Estimate in this House represents merely a problem to be solved. I would infinitely rather, and I think it would be infinitely better permanently for this State if it were possible, to come to this annual account-keeping and regard every single Estimate as a problem to be solved and not as a controversy to be resolved. It is in that spirit, broadly, that I prefer to tackle this particular Estimate. I am faced by the fact that in the year 1924-25 there was a loss of £535,000, in the year 1925-6 a loss of £568,000, and in the year 1926-27 a loss of £548,000. There is nothing party or controversial in that. We are faced by two points of view in relation to that, because we are faced by a point of view, represented by Deputy O'Connell and Co., who apparently regard themselves as bound to defend any expenditure, at any price, which provides them with the popular argument that they are giving employment.

Any social service at any price.

In relation to every social service, no matter how uncontroversial it seems to be, I suggest that this House shall take up its actual cost, shall capitalise that actual cost and ask themselves what they are doing without, which they might have, if they did not have to incur that particular cost for that particular service. I am taking the most unpopular possible line in picking social services, because the case which can be made in the matter of social services is overwhelmingly greater than that upon enforcement and other services. £548,000 capitalised will completely solve the housing problem in Ireland. That is worth considering.

What do we get for this loss of £548,000, which is equal to what we lose in the continuance of the social, moral, political and economic conditions which are created by the existing state of housing in this country, as distinct from the conditions which could be brought into being if this £548,000 were used in the solving of the housing question? It may be true, and it probably is true, that under this Department some letters are being delivered for 2d. which cost 15/-. That is quite possible. I will give you an analogous case which, I think, will bring it home to you. Many years ago there was analysed the whole of the electrical supply distribution costs of the City of Glasgow. It was then delivering something like 100,000,000 units of electricity. It was selling them at somewhere about 4d. per unit, but the figure does not matter very much at the moment. The actual cost of producing to the consumer units which were sold at 4d., varied from about 1½d. to £5 10s. You may have analogous conditions in relation to Posts and Telegraphs. You may have conditions in this country in which the cost of delivering letters, telegrams and so on is completely extortionate from the point of view of what is paid for it. I am not asking the House to say bluntly and clearly that uneconomic things of that kind shall be wiped out. What I am saying is that this House should know and should fully investigate in the most rigorous detail, the cost of the distributive services which they are giving. They should face the question whether some of those services are not being given at a cost to the State out of all proportion to the benefit it has received for them.

If, for instance, by curtailing services of one kind or another—and I take this merely for the moment as an example—if by curtailing the postal service in Connemara, we could solve the real economic conditions there, if we could, by taking from the people who have neither food nor clothes, who have no prospect of continuing to maintain in their own presence the children they bring into the world, if we were to take from the people who have not got the barest luxuries or the barest necessities of human existence, a convenient postal service at the price of giving them the means of having some of these essential human services, do you not think it would be very much better? I suggest that if we do go through all our Departments and find out whether or not some of our services are too costly—due to the fact that we are trying to make them universal and that we are trying to produce exactly equal conditions in one way for people whose conditions are hopelessly unequal in other ways—we may find, not only out of this particular Vote, but out of the £23,000,000 total expenditure in this country, a fund which will solve much more serious problems and much heavier financial obligations than even the very great basic obligation which is upon the members of every Party in this House, without any regard whatever to distinction, and we will find, at the earliest possible moment, by saving from whatever source we can or the production from whatever source we can, the means of radically altering the housing conditions of the vast majority of the people of this country.

Deputy O'Connell pours a certain amount of elongated scorn on a superman. I am told that I am calling for supermen when I suggest that a considerable Government Department might be investigated by an individual or a firm. Well, I can produce the supermen. That is the answer. They are not supermen. They are perfectly ordinary human beings to whom the commercial community are paying considerable sums of money willingly, because they think they get value for it, for doing, in relation to their own business, and doing it successfully, precisely what men of the calibre of Deputy O'Connell think could only be done by supermen. Here is a quotation from a very eminent Deputy:

"I have had some conversation with a man who has some knowledge of Government Departments, and he also has experience in business for a considerable number of years. He was a successful business man, and he said to me: ‘Give me a Government Department with a staff of fifty; let me re-organise that Government Department; let me cut out red tape and old-fashioned systems; and I will guarantee that I will run that Department as efficiently and economically with a staff of ten as it was run in the past with a staff of fifty.'"

The Deputy who said that goes on: "I believe myself it is along those lines that economy can be effected." Now, the superman who said that is Deputy Heffernan.

Experience taught him as it would teach the superman.

If Deputy O'Connell will speak loud enough to be heard and intelligently enough to be understood, I will answer him.

That is a super remark.

Deputy Anthony congratulated, I do not know whom exactly, whether it was the Farmers' Party or the House or Deputy Heffernan, upon his selection for this particular post. Personally, I think, that is an example of a thing which is only a joke, if it is taken seriously. In this particular case it is a peculiarly bad joke, because in putting Deputy Heffernan in charge of that particular Department, the particular Government which is in charge threw away the whole case of pretending to desire economic administration in relation to that Department. I am not inventing this accusation. It is their own accusation against themselves. There is no man in this House, however ignorant of the organisation of business, who will say that it does not matter twopence-halfpenny who is in charge of that Department; that an efficient man at the top and an utterly inefficient man at the top will produce precisely the same results. Here is a quotation: "This is a poor country; yes; bankrupt, no, certainly no sign of bankruptcy. It would be bankrupt if all the people of the country were the same as the Deputy who has just spoken, bankrupt in intelligence, bankrupt in initiative, bankrupt in everything of use to the country." That is a description by the head of this Government who tells us that we cannot reduce expenditure; that we cannot make more efficient the Departments of the State. Bankrupt in intelligence, bankrupt in initiative, bankrupt in everything of use to the country! That is a description by the head of this State of the man who has been put in charge of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Is it very wonderful? Do you need any other explanation of the £548,000 lost in this Department? Dear at the price! Now, can we afford to lose £548,000 to retain the services of a man bankrupt in intelligence, bankrupt in initiative, bankrupt in everything of use to the country? Can we afford to retain in the chief executive office of this country the man who as an indication of his appreciation will put in charge of what ought to be a great and highly-organised administrative institution in this country, the man whom he so described? This £548,000 which I have taken is the figure for 1926-27. It is now £300,000. Well, £300,000 multiplied by twenty is £6,000,000 of money. What sort of chance are you giving yourselves in relation to your administration when you have the deliberate effrontery to put in charge of a great administrative service a man of that mental calibre described by themselves? I do not know anything about his mental calibre.

Hear, hear.

I have no evidence of it, but if you were shareholders in a company and you came to a business meeting and you were told you had lost money or that you had made money and if the managing director was to get up and say that as an indication of appreciation to himself or something connected with him and apart from the particular function of that particular company, he had put in charge of the administration of that company a man bankrupt in everything of use to the country, what would be thought of it? The President said that this was not a bankrupt country, but he said that it certainly would be if all the people were the same as the man whom he has now chosen to put in charge of this Department.

I really suggest that the House should face this fact. What sort of recklessness is this that is going on? If we are allowed deliberately to choose deliberately and proclaim to the House that we have chosen as an indication of appreciation of something else for the service of that administrative Department of the State, a man whom we have so described, is it not a miracle that we are not even in a worse position than we are? I am simply taking this £548,000 or £300,000 as typical. There is no more dust in the sunbeam than in the rest of the room. We now have a plain indication of the sense of responsibility which the Government have in choosing its administrators. If we are to assume that all the Departments of the State are worked on the same principle and are staffed for the same purpose and receive the same consideration—I am using "consideration" in its technical sense —is it any wonder that we are spending £23,000,000 on getting the sort of skeleton social service, skeleton political service, skeleton commercial and economic services which we are getting? You are face to face with the problem which you have got to solve and that is to see that this thing does not recur.

I do sincerely believe that if there were made by some outside competent professional authority an examination of these and other like departments in this State we would get a knowledge of what is really required to run it. Now I am going to say something which I want you to take very particular note of. You will not have solved the problem then, but you will have separated the goats from the sheep; you will have separated the producers from the non-producers; you will have separated the intellectual bankrupts from the people who are capable of producing a balance sheet of services which are a credit to the State; but you will still have upon your hands the mass of people who, in every department of this State, aye, and in every department of business in this country, are sheltering from the rough blasts of the facts of life.

Is there any man here who will suggest that if we had means of demobilising our Army and our Navy—I believe we have a Navy—and our surplus staffs in Government offices into industrial employment, we would not do it? We are up against the fact in every department of our business that we have not places in which to put our men. Your Army and your Civic Guards—what are they but insurance against the consequences of the cause of discontent? And the cause of discontent is the fact that we have not places into which to demobilise those people. I say quite frankly that there is no difficulty whatever in finding out who is working and who is not working. I see no difficulty whatever in radically reducing all services to the simplest form, cutting away all excrescences, getting down to bedrock in personnel, in service and in class. Unless and until this House is prepared, without distinction of Party, without division of any kind, to regard it simply as a problem, to come together and to find a means of providing somewhere into which to demobilise those people who are hidden in Government offices and in a whole lot of sheltered occupations and maintained at the expense of the working people of this country—unless and until we can combine to find a means of encouraging production in this country —no temporary solution by cutting a bit off the Estimates here and there will serve us in any way, because every man you cut off the Estimate you must exterminate, you must migrate or you must keep.

I understood there was a suggestion that the debate would be interrupted at 7.30 p.m. to take up the Supplemental Financial Resolution.

I understand that has been arranged.

Ordered accordingly.

Barr
Roinn