I wish in the first place to complain that within eight miles of Cork city the post is only delivered two or three times weekly. That is causing great inconvenience to the rural community. Deputy Anthony congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. I wish to congratulate the farmers of Ireland on being in a position at last to carry out what was their war-cry during the past twelve months at two elections, namely, the abolition of the bonus. We heard that cry from every platform, and I congratulate the Farmers' Party, through their leader, on being in a position to do so now. He can do that, and at the same time solve the great problem which has agitated the mind of every Deputy, namely, how to turn the dead losses on the Department of Posts and Telegraphs into a profit. In this Department the amount paid by way of bonus came to £606,510 and the loss during the twelve months amounted to about £548,000, so that this Budget could be balanced, having a credit balance of £58,000. I think it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to do this. I congratulate the farmers in two ways: on getting relief from this sum of £606,510, or in definitely seeing exposed here the humbug preached on the Farmers' Party platforms during the last two elections.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 62—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS. (Resumed).
I am not going to make a speech. I always like to get other people to make speeches for me. I want, first of all, to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his conversion. This is what he said in 1926:
"I want to say that while I appreciate the efforts that have been made to economise in the Post Office service, and while I am glad to see that the Post Office is being run at a smaller loss than in past years, I think we should recognise that the Post Office is a business concern. ...."
I want to congratulate him on his conversion, and his open confession this evening, that he believes the Post Office should not and cannot be run as a business concern, that it is a utility service and should be run as a utility service. I could not make the case myself so well as the Parliamentary Secretary made it in 1926, so I will continue to read his speech:
"I am sorry the Minister has not seen his way to make some reduction in postal charges. The Minister has shown that his revenue has decreased from year to year. I am inclined to think that possibly the best way to increase revenue is to make a decrease in the postal charges. I think it is generally found that people respond quickly to any decrease in postal charges, and if the price of a stamp for ordinary letters were reduced to 1½d., I believe that the response might actually bring in a greater revenue than the Minister gets on the twopenny stamps. The present price certainly hampers and retards business. People are slow to write letters when it would cost twopence for a stamp. The same thing applies to charges for the delivery of telegrams in the rural districts. That is nothing new. We have made strong complaints already about it, and it is a pretty serious grievance that we who live in outlying districts have to pay such enormous charges. I live just beyond the three-mile limit"—
That was not the three-mile limit we were discussing last night—
"and I have to pay one and sixpence for my telegrams on delivery. That means, for instance, that if I am going home, and if I telegraph to someone to meet me at the station, it costs 2/6, including delivery charge. It would be almost as cheap for me to hire a car at the station as to telegraph for somone to come to meet me."
It will be 6d. higher this time. That is the only alteration that the Minister has made. It would be much cheaper for the Parliamentary Secretary to hire a car this time than it was then. He would be in a much better position in 1926 than he is now. I do not propose to comment on that. It is eloquent and is a confession by the Parliamentary Secretary that nothing can be done, and that those things that he believed in in 1926, he does not believe in now. It is a conversion I suppose. Conventionality and consistency are bugbears to little minds, but I can very easily see that he has been converted, and I congratulate him on his conversion. There is only one other matter that I would ask for information on, and that is with regard to the preparation of the Telephone Directory. In the country it is very difficult to find in the directory districts that one is looking for. There seems to be a craze for alphabetical order. I once heard of a gentleman who put his children to bed in alphabetical order. He would not put Bridget to bed before he put Annie. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have a craze in that direction and it is not at all convenient for people in country districts. If you circumscribe an area you can easily find people you want, but if you have to travel down Cork, Dublin, Bundoran, Tralee and all these places you certainly will not find it so easy. I have no suggestions to make, and I repeat my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on his conversion.
I am sorry to think that I have had the misfortune of losing the greater portion of this debate, but I have had the privilege of hearing some few remarks which came from Deputy Flinn. I have heard him complain—how it was relevant to the subject I do not know exactly—of the strength of the Army. I wonder whether he was speaking of the British Army or of the Army of the Irish Republic. I think he escaped from both, and that he has, or should have, no grievance against either Army. I have heard him complain of the Civic Guards. So far as I know they have never given any trouble to Deputy Flinn. I have heard him complain, in the third instance, of the postal service. I understand that we are at present discussing the postal service, and I would like to ask Deputy Flinn, and every member of the House too, speaking from post-Treaty times, if the postal service has ever been better run than at present. When was there a time when there were less complaints against the postal service than there are to-day? I agree that at all times— and I hope the time will never come when we will change—there ought to be a grievance against the postal service on every possible opportunity that arises.
Another thing I gathered from Deputy Flinn was this: Regarding the Free State he asked who was working and who was not working. I speak only for my own constituency, but when the Free State came into operation there was working in it an Englishman who was doing enormous good for my constituency. Throughout the whole Free State he was spending money, and, despite all the calumnies you will hear of in this House, he was not, with his foreign capital, paying anything like cost price. He was doing everything that he could, and he employed more men in the Free State than any other Englishman, or than any citizen of the Free State did. He has gone to-day from us, and Deputy Flinn asks who is working to-day and who is not working. I wish this man would come back to us, and I wish he would bring back his foreign capital. I wish he would remain in the Free State, and, so far as his foreign capital is concerned, he would be the most welcome Englishman in the Free State and the most welcome Englishman in West Cork that you could possibly conceive. I am sorry that he is not here to hear my encomiums of him, because both he and his father were the best employers of labour that we had in West Cork.
I would remind the Deputy that this is the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
I have had a grumble every year for a number of years past with regard to the inefficiency of the postal service in my neighbourhood. I am glad to say that the cause of complaint has been removed and that the service is now entirely efficient. But while I say that with regard to the postal service, my heart is broken and my temper is severely tried by the telephone service. Reasons are given and excuses are offered for its deficiencies, and one of the excuses that is offered at the present time is that it is due to the introduction of the automatic service. The automatic service is a great success, but it now forms an excuse for the inattention and the inaccuracy of the people in the Central Exchange when areas that are not yet placed under the automatic system wish to get into communication with you. Over and over again it happens that when one asks for a particular number one is either told that the number is engaged or that there is no response, when you hear a few minutes afterwards that the person you were calling up was actually sitting in the room with the telephone all the time. Again, I do not think there is a day upon which I am not brought to the telephone four or five times with false calls. They can offer you no excuse except to say that it is due to the automatic system, when the automatic system has practically nothing whatever to do with it. There is a lady who telephones fairly frequently to my house, and on three days of the present week in succession she was put on to the number that is next to mine.
My number is 61475. I think it is quite possible that that number is much too severe on the memory of the ordinary operator. We know what short memories people have with regard to many things, and it is quite possible that the operators are unable to carry that number in their heads for a length of time. The number next mine is 61476, and that is being rung up constantly. The gentleman there has a much better temper than I have, and he does not abuse the lady when he is called up. Occasionally when I go to the telephone I am abused because a person has been wrongly put on to me, although I have gone to the trouble of answering it. I do not want to make too much of this. I can say this, that as far as the service is concerned one receives the greatest amount of politeness and the greatest amount of courtesy. That was not always so. I remember on one occasion when I complained to a male operator at 10 o'clock at night and he asked me when I would be ready to receive him to fight him. I advised him to wait until the liquor that had got into him had cooled down, when perhaps his fighting spirit would be reduced in like proportion. As far as civility is concerned, the people in the Central Exchange are extremely civil, and this defect must be due to the fact that their memories are not able to carry a big number, or to the fact that the persons who are calling are not good at pronouncing figures. Finally I want to say that if the Parliamentary Secretary could cause a reduction in the expenses of his service at anything like the same rate of speed as that at which he read his statement to-day we would soon have a splendid reduction.
The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.
Are we to understand that the debate is concluded now, or that we can discuss the sub-heads after the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken?
I understood that the House was having a rather general discussion of the whole Vote—sub-heads and all.
No. As a matter of fact, the Ceann Comhairle at the beginning of the discussion ruled out some matters on the ground that they would come up on the sub-heads.
If the House wishes to take the Estimate sub-head by sub-head it is all right. The discussion up to the present has been a general discussion.
I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to carry out the pledge he gave at the June and September elections to abolish the bonus?
I think it would be almost advisable to move the adjournment of the debate in order that we might have an opportunity of considering a statement which we did not hear; I mean that it is quite impossible for us to discuss the Estimate after the manner in which the statement was delivered. There are a considerable number of things which I think would be worth inquiring into, but in view of the fact that I was not able to take down the figures, I do not know that I can add anything very useful to the discussion. There was, for instance, a question as to what arrangements had been made in regard to the carriage of mails. I find from the Appropriation Accounts for 1926-27 that the cost of the carriage of mails had remained practically stationary in the years 1925-26 and 1926-27, but that the cost of carrying the foreign mails had been reduced. If we are faced with this fact, that we have falling transport costs and that the total amount spent in carrying the mails remains constant, I should like to know exactly what the increase in the number of letters carried is, so that I might be able to satisfy myself that the amount spent under this head is justified.
If we are going to take this by sub-heads, I wish to point out to the Deputy that he can raise the matter regarding the conveyance of mails under sub-head (E). There is a general discussion at the moment.
This is more or less general, too. So far as I could gather from the figures, I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there had been a loss last year of between £300,000 and £400,000. A Deputy with a record of the Parliamentary Secretary——
Does the Deputy wish to know the loss last year?
Yes.
The accounts have not yet been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but the estimated loss for last year is £362,000.
That is a significant figure. When the Deputy enjoyed the liberty that I suppose belongs to a private member, he was one of the strongest critics of the Government in regard to its inefficiency, and naturally one would expect that next year there would be an improvement in postal services, and that the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for those services would have made up his mind that they would be improved, would have satisfied himself that they could be improved, and consequently that the loss to be met by the Exchequer would be something less than £362,000, the actual estimated loss for 1927-28. Looking, however, at the estimates of receipts and expenditure supplied to the House, I find that actually next year the Parliamentary Secretary, the strong advocate of efficiency and economy when enjoying the liberty of a private member —contaminated, I suppose, by the bad company in which he found himself recently—is of opinion that, so far from the loss on running the postal services next year being only £362,000, it is going to be something like £673,000.
I think that the Deputy must be quoting Deputy Flinn's figures. The estimated loss, as read out, for the year 1928-29 is £329,000. You may subtract from that the revenue which would accrue because of the additional sixpence on telegraphic charges of £66,000. If you take that from £329,000 you get the actual estimated loss for the year 1928-9.
I confess that I have not the knowledge of arithmetic which the Parliamentary Secretary has, but I have managed to add up the receipts which it is estimated will be secured from the postal, telegraph and telephone services, according to the White Paper presented to the Dáil, and the total receipts amount to £1,751,860. The estimated expenditure in respect of these services is £2,425,000. I may be wrong, but subtracting £1,751,000 odd from £2,425,000, I get £673,000 as the estimated loss on these particular services. As I say, I may be wrong, but possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to correct me and show how the loss is going to be much less than the amount which I have calculated. Even if he does, we have this point to consider, namely, that either the revenue from the Post Office has been deliberately under-estimated or the expenditure upon the Post Office has been deliberately over-estimated. I think when we are considering the Estimates and when a Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, comes to the House and presents Estimates they should not be presented in that fashion, and that the estimates in respect of any service should be the closest possible that could be made in respect of it.
If the service is one which produces non-tax revenue the income from that service should be estimated as closely as possible, because, unless we are able to form a very exact and definite idea as to what our income and expenditure will be, we are going to deal loosely with money matters and we may find ourselves in the unfortunate position of the Minister for Finance of having, as Deputy Flinn stated a few days ago, to scavenge in every corner of the State, to turn out everybody's pockets, to find money which, after all, we may not require. In connection with the efficiency of the Post Office, for which the Parliamentary Secretary took a great deal of credit, he quoted certain statistics. I do not know how they were arrived at, but I can corroborate the statement of Deputy Sir James Craig that in some respects the telephone service is not at all as satisfactory as it should be. I know one exchange to which my private residence is connected and I can vouch for the fact that I have been told that no reply could be got from that particular connection when there were at least five people in my own house. Similarly, people in that house were told that they could get no reply from my office when that office was occupied. I do not know whether that condition applies to the telephone service generally. So far as the commercial end is concerned it is satisfactory, but in relation to that particular branch exchange to which I refer the position is very unsatisfactory.
resumed the Chair.
There is one other matter to which I would refer. It has been stated here that, the Post Office being a utility service, it is not really necessary to consider whether we make a loss or a profit upon it. I do not see any reason why, if being a utility service, it could not be run at a profit if proper regard were had to efficiency in its management. The telegraph companies of America, in some areas at any rate, have practically the same problem with which we have to deal in regard to sparsely populated districts, yet the telegraph services are very profitable in America, though run by private companies. I do not see any reason why the State, provided it made up its mind that efficiency was going to be the only consideration that counted for promotion rather than favouritism or party affiliation, could not run a great public utility service, such as the postal and telegraph service, as efficiently as a private company.
The Government in many respects adopt that attitude also. In connection with the Shannon scheme they have practically decided that the whole electrical industry of this country will be run by what is virtually—however under the Act theoretically it may appear not to be—a State service. The plea put forward for running the electrical industry in that way was that this great utility service could be run more satisfactorily by the State than by a private concern. Provided certain principles are accepted and adhered to, I believe that that is true, and I do not see any reason why, if that is true of the electrical industry, it ought not to be true of the Post Office which, after all, will serve a considerably greater number of customers, and which has the advantage of the fact that a great deal of the original capital put into the telegraph and telephone services has already been repaid. It seems to me that it is not possible under the present system for the Post Office to operate satisfactorily. We have those in charge of a Government service coming here, presenting statements of receipts and estimated expenditure, and asking us to vote money to make up a deficiency, but they never present us with a surplus. The commercial accounts of these services are not available, at least, the commercial accounts of the Saorstát postal services have not been available since 1926, and then we are presented with a batch of accounts dealing with the years 1923-4-5-6.
If these services were run as a commercial concern the Department would be in a position to present their accounts every twelve months. They would be in a position to know at the expiration of one month or two months how the preceding twelve months had panned out for them as a commercial concern. I would suggest that in future the commercial accounts of the Post Office should be published at the end of every twelve months or as near thereto as may be possible, and not to allow matters like this to drag for three or four years before they are presented to the Dáil and given to the public.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary concluding the general discussion now or do we take each item separately before he concludes? There is a matter I want to raise on an item further down.
I think it better that, perhaps, the Deputy should raise his point now. I thought we were discussing the matter in general and in particular up to the present.
There are two matters I want to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I raised one of these matters before in November and he promised to give it consideration. That is the question of the cost of delivery of rural telegrams, or telegrams sent to country districts situated a long distance from the Post Office. I know several districts in Leix in which a delivery charge of from 2/- to 3/6 is made. Taking that in conjunction with the present revised minimum cost of 1/6, it makes the cost of a telegram in these districts from 3/6 to 5/-. I think a cost of 3/6 to 5/- is prohibitive, and something should be done to level up the rate so as to give people who are not fortunate enough to live near a post office some consideration. Another matter regarding which there has been considerable complaint in country districts is the delivery of letters. There are only two or three deliveries per week. All members of the House will find the same grievance in their constituencies in regard to that matter, and I think that something should be done to devise a system which would give a better delivery in country districts.
Suggestions have been made since I came into the House a short time ago that the Parliamentary Secretary has failed in the office he has taken up, that he has failed in his duty, and that he has not balanced the postal budget. The postal budget has never been balanced. The Estimates of previous years will show that we were losing, at one time, £1,500,000 on the Post Office in the Saorstát, and that with the system of economy that has been adopted we have been steadily reducing that deficit. We have been bringing the loss down until we have now reached the lowest figure that has ever been reached during the last six years. Almost all these economies have been effected at the expense of the rural population. Complaints have been made about the postal facilities in some of the towns, especially in County Cork, that they had not two or three deliveries in the day. Whenever we made the claim that every citizen of the State deserved equal service from the State and that he is entitled because of his citizenship to get equal service, we never had the support of representatives of the cities. It has been the other way about. There are three ways by which we could have a further saving and by which, perhaps, we could balance the postal budget. One method is to raise the postal rate. Another is to curtail the services with an additional curtailment of staff, but none of the Deputies who have charged the Parliamentary Secretary with not having balanced the postal budget had the courage of indicating in what direction we could do it.
I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary that he could do it by carrying out the pledges he gave to the electors, namely, to abolish the bonus.
Deputy Flinn has treated us to the usual type of speech that comes from the Deputy. It is beneath the dignity of the House and beneath my dignity to reply to it. He made a low personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Deputy said it was a low personal attack.
Yes.
Was there any point of order raised about it?
No.
Did the Chair advert to it?
No.
Then it could not have been a low personal attack.
On a point of order, Deputy Gorey was not here when Deputy Flinn made his speech.
On a point of explanation, Deputy Flinn quoted from the Dáil Reports as to references made by the President to the Parliamentary Secretary. There was nothing in it of his own personal remarks. He quoted from the Dáil Debates.
All I want to indicate is that perhaps Deputy Gorey means that Deputy Flinn adverted to the personal efficiency of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I could not allow to pass unchallenged the statement that he made a low personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary, because had a low personal attack been made, it would certainly have been adverted to by the Chair. I do not think Deputy Gorey should refer to it as a low personal attack. I think he should withdraw that and thus put himself on a higher plane.
I certainly withdraw the words that you consider improper, sir. I do say, though, that it would be more honest if the Deputy would give us some indication of the direction in which the postal budget should be balanced. When we were dealing with the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance, I expressed satisfaction at the increase of the telegraph charges, provided it was going to replace the charges for delivery of telegrams in rural areas. I have always held the view, and I hold it now, that there should be no extra charge for delivery in any part of the country. I say every citizen in the State deserves equal service from the State and because citizens live in rural areas they should not be penalised.
It may be said, and it has been said here, that it was always so and that it is even so in England, but that does not prove that the system is right and it does not prove that it is equitable. People in the country have to put up with many drawbacks. They have to live out in rural areas where there are no amusements, and where services are not to be had and these State services that they are paying for as much as any other citizen in this State are denied them, and they are denied them because they live in rural areas far away from the centres of population.
Do you want the whole people to live in communities so that there should be no rural population? Many people are living in rural districts because of necessity. Creameries situated outside in certain rural areas have to pay as much as 2/6 for the delivery of telegrams and I know creameries that have to pay as much as 3/- for the delivery of a telegram. That is absolutely unfair. It would be just as just that postal charges should be increased in the case of letters for dwellers in the rural areas. A 2d. stamp will take a letter to a dweller in an urban area. If a dweller in a rural area had to pay threepence for stamping a similar letter it would not be equitable and it is just the same in the case of the telegrams. The argument is as sound in one case as it is in the other. We, in the rural areas have been up against that all our lives. It was a heritage given to us, but, as I said, that does not prove that it is right, and I hope that this increase in the charges for sending telegrams to people will wipe out the injustice inflicted on certain citizens of the State in the past.
I do not see in what direction there is going to be any further curtailment. I was quite prepared for the suggestion that if there is to be any curtailment that curtailment is to be made at the expense of the rural population. There are to-day many districts in rural areas with three deliveries per week and some even with only two deliveries in the week. It was Deputy Flinn, I think, who suggested that it would be better to do without some of those services which cause the State a half a million of an annual loss, and give them something back in return. Who is going to get the something back in return? If the rural population is going to do without postal services, if they are to have no increase in their postal services, or even if there is to be a curtailment of the services they have, are these people to get the full benefit of the half-million pounds, or is the half-million to be distributed to all the citizens of the State? Let us have some clear thinking on that matter. I have heard some Deputies here from time to time complain that some of their constituents living in urban areas have not had three deliveries of letters daily. Well, there are only two or three deliveries in some rural districts. Yet, in some of those districts as much as 3/- and in cases that I know 5/- extra has had to be paid for the delivery of a telegram. I do not know what the policy of the Opposition is on this matter. It would be well if the Opposition would declare themselves. Do they stand for equal services for all the citizens of the State? I do, anyhow, and I have always stood for it. I hope that in the next Budget equal services will be provided for every citizen of the State in the matter of postal and telegraph services.
I desire to join with Deputies Gorey and Corry in appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to review the charges for the forwarding and delivery of telegrams. I think this is the second or third occasion in which Deputy Gorey has made this appeal to the House. Now, he is making an appeal to a past colleague of his own and to a member of the Farmers' Party, and I hope that that appeal will not fall on deaf ears. The Parliamentary Secretary told us this evening that the average charge for sending a telegram was 1/3½, whereas the average cost of a telegram was 2/5. The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement announced an increase in the charge, that is the minimum charge, for a telegram from 1/- to 1/6. The Minister for Finance, in making his Budget statement and dealing with this matter, lead the House to understand, or gave it as his own personal opinion, that 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the telegrams sent by people in this country were sent by betting men, bookies, or that they were sent by fathers and mothers to their children who were getting married congratulating them, or that they were sent condoling with the relations of people who died. I do not take that view. I agree with Deputy Gorey that a big section of the people of this country in the rural areas live far away from places where there is a possibility in the near future, at any rate, of having a telephone system installed. There is an idea in the minds of the official advisers of the Post Office that by imposing higher charges, or by making it more difficult to send telegrams, you will make the people of this country make greater use of the telephone system at their disposal. In the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary made here this evening, he did not give anything in the shape of figures which would lead any Deputy to believe that he was in any way energetic in pushing the telephone system throughout the country. At any rate, telephones will only be erected in places where there is a possibility of getting a certain revenue, that is in villages and towns. These villages and towns are in many cases far away from people who will, and must, always make use of the telegraphic service. I think it is unfair to the sender of telegrams—and it is the sender who gets the benefit— it is unfair to him to make a charge of 1/6 and expect at the same time that the receiver may have to pay double that charge on that telegram. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will put into practice what he preached when appealing from the centre benches here supporting Deputy Gorey in appeals made to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the past. I feel now in joining Deputy Gorey in this matter, and in making an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make a charge which will cover the cost of forwarding and delivering the telegram, that I am not appealing in vain.
There is an item, conveyance of mail by air, to which I want to call attention. Under this sub-head for £30, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform us if there is in contemplation any scheme for the development of the air services between the Saorstát and any other country. I note that in this morning's paper there is a report of a question asked in the British House of Commons concerning the possibility of the development of a system by which seaborne mails would be taken by aeroplane from Ireland to England, or to the Continent, in order to avoid the delay in the transit of these mails. I do not know if the member in the English House of Commons who asked that question had any information which we did not happen to have, and if so, I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us what is the position. The recent successful Atlantic flight has undoubtedly aroused interest in air service in this country, and there is no doubt that if the air-mail services are to be developed they will come as a result of postal subvention, just as the mail packet services came in the past. It will be very largely the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that these arrangements will be made and that these services will be started. I am sure he has had the matter under consideration, and I will be glad if he will tell us what steps he proposes to take in this connection?
The question of air mails is shown in E 4, and the amount of £30 under that item is only for the charges which we might be called upon to pay in regard to mails which might be sent from this country directed to go by the air mail routes outside of this country. There are three such routes; one is the London Continental Air Route; the second is the Cairo to Baghdad route, and the third is the New York-San Francisco Air Route. Any poster of letters in this country has a right to send his letters so that they can be forwarded by air mail and stamped accordingly. The demand for this service is very limited, and the Vote here is a token vote. With regard to the bigger general question which the Deputy raised, the question of the air service is not exclusively a matter for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. As a matter of fact, if it were I think there would be very little chance of any air route being established. The demand for an air postal service between this country and the Continent is practically negligible, and if the establishment of any air route is to depend on local demands, I think it very unlikely that it will be established. There are many other Departments concerned in the establishment of an air route emanating from the Saorstát, and I am sure that the Deputy's suggestion will receive consideration. Probably it has been receiving consideration in the several Departments concerned. So far as my Department is concerned, if we can help we will be prepared to do so, but we see no great sign that there is any demand for an air service in this country at the moment.
With regard to the general question, I take it that in making my final statement I will not have to deal with any details. As regards the general criticism made on this Estimate, particularly from the Benches opposite, I must say that I have a feeling that they showed almost a complete lack of knowledge of the postal service and a complete lack of study even of the Estimate which was placed before all Deputies.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question? Is that very wonderful considering the manner in which his statement was put before us to-day?
With regard to the statement I made, I thought it desirable to make a rather elaborate statement, because I believe that the people of the country, and particularly Deputies, should have an understanding and a realisation of the whole postal service and the effects of any changes which might be suggested or might be made. As regards the figures quoted in my statement, most of these are explained in publications that are available for Deputies if they desire to see them. As far as the actual figures quoted by me are concerned, they are simply an extension of figures quoted in recent years, and any Deputy who went to the trouble of reading the statements made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in previous years would have a very general knowledge of the conditions of the service.
Listening to the statements and criticisms made by Deputies on the opposite Benches, I had hopes, in view of the policy expounded, particularly by Fianna Fáil Deputies, with regard to economy, that I might get some helpful suggestions and that at least accurate figures would be quoted. With the exception of Deputy Lemass, I found very little to justify that hope. The figures quoted by Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Flinn had no relation to any figures which I have in the papers before me. The figures they quoted bear no relation either to figures quoted by me in my statements. When I heard Deputy MacEntee's statement I thought for the moment that he was actually unaware that there was such a thing in existence as a commercial account in the Post Office. Towards the end of his speech I found he was aware of that. He quoted the estimates of expenditure, and as against these the estimated revenue, and he suggested that the difference between the Estimate and the revenue was an actual loss to the Post Office.
The estimated loss for next year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain where I will get the commercial account for 1928-29?
Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to finish. The Deputy took it that the difference between the estimated expenditure and the estimated revenue meant an actual loss to the Post Office, and he did not seem to realise that there was such a thing in existence in the service as a commercial account. He must not have been here or he must not have listened to the opening paragraph in my statement, in which I explained that there was no real relationship and no definite information as to the total loss to the Post Office to be derived from the estimated figures of expenditure and of revenue. Not only that, but the Deputy need not have gone to the commercial accounts at all; he could have satisfied himself from the Estimates, if he had looked up page 252, where he would have found figures showing that, in our accounting, certain services rendered by us are taken into account and certain services rendered for us by other Departments are taken into account and, before any realisation of the finances of the Post Office could be arrived at, these figures should be considered. If that is the type of criticism we are to face, I can hardly describe it as criticism at all.
Deputy Flinn, when quoting the ostensible figures showing the loss on the Post Office in accordance with our commercial figures, quoted some figures which are not officially in existence at all. One cannot deal with that form of criticism. A great deal of capital has been made out of my past references to the postal services by Deputies here who have gone to the trouble of reading past statements of mine on the Estimates. At least there is one thing that Deputies will have to give the members of the Farmers' Party credit for in regard to our criticism of finances.
What Farmers' Party?
The Farmers' Party is a dead letter.
Let the dead rest.
Let the Parliamentary Secretary proceed.
We at least had the courage of our convictions when we believed that savings could be made. We were a very small Party, with very limited resources at our disposal, but we faced the problem and we put down amendments on several Estimates and argued and had votes on those Estimates. We did not, perhaps, succeed in persuading the House, and perhaps we were not altogether convinced in the end that we were right. When we receive criticisms from the Deputies on the opposite benches, at least they ought to face the actual problems and give us some indication of where we might make savings.
Save your face.
Deputy Lemass's criticism was at least an attempt to face the facts and to deal with certain figures. He confined himself principally to general figures which, in reducing expenditure, would be of very little help. He confined himself to the figures relating to the cost of the Headquarters Staff since the establishment of the Post Office here and he compared the increase in the cost of the Headquarters staff with the other services in the Post Office. The explanation of that is that at the taking over of the Post Office Service there was no real Headquarters staff in existence. There was a certain skeleton formation here and we had to build our Headquarters staff up and the process of building it up is now about completed. We have now almost completed our Headquarters staff. Up to quite recently the members of the headquarters staff were temporary, and if the Deputy will look at the Estimates he will find in almost every sub-head that he quoted from that, although the number of the staff has increased, the amount estimated for the payment of temporary staffs has decreased to a great extent, and in some cases it more than balances the actual increase. In regard to headquarters, we have made up an established staff to a large extent, and as far as we can, we are getting rid of the temporary unestablished staff. That is a desirable course to adopt, and it will hardly be criticised very severely.
Regarding the loss to the Post Office, we are dealing with that matter, and it is hardly necessary for me to repeat that we have steadily, from the taking over in 1922, reduced the loss. The loss in 1922 was £1,000,000, and it has steadily gone down until it is now estimated for the coming year that the loss will be only £266,000.
That is a very genuine achievement on the part of the Post Office service, and one that I think the officials ought to be proud of. The statement has been made that the losses on the Post Office service cannot be wiped out until the service is run as a commercial concern. It is a matter for the Dáil to decide whether or not the service is to be run as a business institution. If that is decided on, then the commercial community and the people generally will have to face up to certain implications that must follow from that. One would be that certain services which are still unremunerative must be lopped off. It is generally recognised, I think, that it is not desirable either economically or politically to still further reduce our services. I believe that, if I were to come to the Dáil with the suggestion that rural and urban deliveries should be still further reduced, the Dáil would not give its sanction to that. On the other hand, I do not hold out the hope that the Post Office is never at any time going to be a paying institution. I believe that eventually it will become a paying proposition, and that we are advancing along that road at present. The pace in that direction must of necessity be a bit slow. Investigations have been made with the view to effecting economies, but as we get nearer and nearer to the problem we find that under present conditions it is no easy matter to effect economies. While I have hopes that there will be a gradual reduction in the losses on the Post Office service, I still think it will take a considerable number of years before we will be in the position that our revenue and expenditure accounts will balance. That will depend, of course, to a very large extent upon the economic condition of the country. With improved economic conditions, there will undoubtedly be an increased demand for the postal service in its various branches. That would lead to increased revenue and to a reduction in the operating costs. Economies are gradually being made in the service, but I am afraid that a certain number of years must pass before the losses on the Post Office service will be entirely wiped out and before it becomes what I might call a solvent institution.
Deputy Lemass referred to certain of the postal services upon which we are losing money. He referred to the rates for printed papers and to parcels delivered in the country. In regard to the printed paper rates, they form part of the International Convention under which we are obliged to act. While the Saorstát Post Office is a member of the International Convention, it is bound to abide by the regulations of the Convention. One of the regulations is that the rates on printed paper shall not be increased. With regard to parcel delivery charges, the Deputy is aware that an additional charge of 6d. was imposed on parcel deliveries. That additional charge had the temporary effect of reducing the number of parcels coming in here from outside sources. It was only a temporary effect, however, and the actual number of parcels now coming in is about equal to the number coming in at the time the additional delivery charge was put on. It is, of course, a matter for argument as to whether this delivery charge might not be further increased. If such a course were followed, certain implications would ensue from that. Commercial people and others in the country are interested in the matter, and I submit it is not a charge which could be increased off-hand or without taking cognisance of the effects it would have on the general trade of the country.
Deputy Lemass quoted some figures with regard to losses on the telephone service. His figures were not quite correct. In the year 1924 the loss on the telephone service was £3,348. I think the Deputy stated that in that year the service was a paying one. That is not so. The telephone charges were decreased in 1925, and in that year the loss on the service amounted to £33,976. In the subsequent years, the loss slightly increased until, in 1928, the estimated loss was £59,000.
As I pointed out in my opening statement the development of the telephone service is likely to lead to an increase in the loss temporarily. When exchanges are put up throughout the country under the scheme of extending the telephone service, you are not likely to get a sufficient number of subscribers at the start to make a particular extension a paying proposition. The interest in the capital expenditure involved in making new extensions has to be met year after year. When extensions are made in thinly populated areas throughout the country you are bound to meet with slight losses at the start, but as the advantages of these extensions become recognised and appreciated throughout the country, it is hoped that the losses on the service will be decreased and that eventually it will be possible to balance expenditure with income.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary state that the telephone service was never a paying proposition?
It was never a paying proposition in this country.
At any time?
I am dealing with the figures from 1922 on. The original loss was £42,000. That loss subsequently decreased to £3,000, but when the old telephone charges were decreased in 1925 and the new charges substituted, the losses on the service again increased. With regard to Press telegrams, the loss on them is principally due to the excess of incoming Press material. The question of the handling of that and of the losses sustained in connection with that branch of the service is receiving departmental consideration, but we have not yet arrived at any decision as to whether it will be possible to make such readjustments as will remunerate us in part for the losses we are suffering owing to the excessive amount of Press material coming in here from outside sources.
The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that there is a loss on Press messages. Would he indicate what the loss is?
The loss on Press telegrams is about £19,000 a year. A good deal of the loss is due to the fact that there is a surplus of incoming Press telegrams from outside places. It has to be considered whether anything in the nature of an increased charge for Press telegrams in this country might not have the effect of stimulating supplies of news from outside sources rather than from sources within the country.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into consideration the fact that the telegraph service has been relieved very considerably by the various newspaper offices in Ireland—I refer particularly to the offices in Cork and Dublin—through the setting up of the Creed machines? I also put it to the Minister, is it not a common practice, in business at any rate, to give a certain remission to large consumers, which the Press of necessity are so far as their relations to Press telegraphy are concerned, and has the Parliamentary Secretary taken that into consideration?
The Deputy is aware that there is a specially low rate for the Press, and he may if he likes regard that as a concession to a large consumer. Telegraphy has been quickened and improved by the Creed and other machines. With regard to the delay in trunk calls, it is impossible to deal with details of that kind. If the Deputy or any other person has a complaint to make regarding delay or inefficiency that complaint should be made to the supervisor, or to headquarters, and then we can deal with the actual official concerned. But, and I call Deputy Sir James Craig's attention to it, we cannot deal in a general way with complaints. We must get specific cases and we can deal with them. The delay in making calls is not always the fault of the telephonist or of our service. It is very often due to the caller, perhaps because of indistinct pronunciation or giving a wrong number, or carelessness. With regard to the telephone service, there has been an all round improvement in the matter of speed since the taking over of the service by the Free State Department.
Deputy Lemass made a point with regard to ex-National Army candidates getting employment in the Post Office. The policy so far as ex-Army men is concerned is the general policy of the Government, which is to give preference to ex-Army candidates. It is not for me to argue why that preference is given. It is given for obvious reasons, but I understand relaxations are being made in that respect. Speaking from memory, I believe in regard to recent employment in our service that we were instructed to give first preference in employment to ex-National Army candidates with families, second preference to candidates who were not ex-Service men but who had families, and then following that to the men who had been in the National Army but who have not families. That is my recollection of the existing regulation regarding temporary or other employment in the service. We are constantly inundated with applications for jobs and we had to turn away all classes of men, ex-Army and others, because of our inability to give them employment. A man who is turned away may go to a Deputy and say, "I am turned away because I am not an ex-National Army man," but the fact is that we have to turn away people every day because we cannot give them employment.
Deputy Kennedy and others raised the question of telephone extensions to rural districts. I outlined, in my opening statement, our general policy with regard to the extension of the telephone service in rural districts. Since taking over the postal service we have pursued the policy of extension all over the Free State. It will be found on examination that our trunk routes extend to every town in the Free State, and we are gradually extending our rural facilities, but, naturally, our extensions must be governed by financial considerations. We can, if we like, establish extensions, but at a loss. We cannot establish exchanges and call offices unless we are satisfied there is a reasonable prospect they will be a paying proposition. As to the high cost of exchanges mentioned by Deputy G. Wolfe in certain places, the cost to the users of telephones is governed by the cost of the establishment of the exchange and the necessary wire connections. Sometimes it happens when we have a limited number of exchange users where the exchange is established they have to bear the whole cost. The original cost is capitalised, and the annual charge has to be borne by the local users of that capital cost, plus the cost of operating the local exchange.
The charge in these cases, I am afraid, must remain high. I think, as I said in that connection in my opening statement, that the use of the telephone in a rural district must to a large extent depend on the use which is being made of it in the towns, and that the outlying villages are not likely to make use of the telephone unless for the purpose of getting into communication with the principal business people in the towns. The telephone habit has not yet caught on as it ought to in this country, so that the number of users is still comparatively small. Our policy for the future, having covered the greater part of the country with our trunk lines and lines of exchange, will be to canvass all the towns and rural areas in order to get a greater number of users, and so make it cheaper and be an inducement to those who are anxious to become users. Deputy Wolfe made reference to the Ballymore-Eustace postal route. Arrangements are being made to establish a motor mail route on the Ballymore-Eustace line in substitution for the present train service. I expect it to be in working order probably within a month.
Deputy Briscoe made some complaint because of a charge on a telegram owing to an office being closed. It is a fact that when the delivery office is closed, and the delivery has to be made from a different office, the person receiving the telegram has to bear the charge from the office from which the delivery is made.
Why was the delivery of this telegram not made from Terenure, rather than from Dundrum?
I cannot deal with details like that. The Deputy will have to put down a question or write to me about it.
I raise the matter to show that the telegram was delivered at Rathfarnham from Dundrum, which is farther away than Terenure.
I cannot deal with every detail like that, as I have not the information at my disposal.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the other matter I mentioned?
The Deputy also mentioned something about a telephone removal and asserted that there was some fault on the part of the Post Office. That is a matter of detail which I cannot deal with without having the actual details and the Post Office information as well as the Deputy's. If there are matters like that which the Deputy wishes to deal with, he can do so by putting down a question or writing a letter and I will give him an answer.
Does it not indicate the standard of efficiency?
If the standard of efficiency is not better than the Deputy's knowledge of figures, it is not very high. Deputy Redmond referred to the status of the Waterford staff and mentioned that the staff is graded as Class II. instead of Class I. As a matter of fact, they are graded as Class III. Dublin is the only Class I. office. There are a certain number of offices, like Blackrock, Bray, etc., which are graded as Class II., but Waterford happens to be graded as Class III. This grade goes back to the old British times. This matter has received consideration, and is again receiving consideration, and I believe that a definite announcement will be made within the next few months as to the future grading of the Waterford staff.
Deputy Corry referred to rural deliveries, to the advisability of economy and the necessity for saving money on the Post Office service. I will give him credit for making one concrete suggestion. He said that the bonus of the Post Office servants amounts to £606,000. I believe that is correct. He also stated that, it having been the policy of the Farmers' Party that the bonus should be wiped out. I should take steps to wipe it out. It has not been the policy of the Farmers' Party that the bonus should be wiped out. I did not, as a member of that Party, at any time sign such a pledge. The Deputy might have gone to a little further trouble with regard to his figures. He did go to the trouble of getting the correct figure as to the amount of the bonus, but he said that if the bonus was wiped out it would, in fact, balance the actual loss on the Post Office. He gave the loss on the Post Office as £548,000. The actual loss, as I said in my opening statement, is now estimated at something like £266,000. If you are to deal with Deputies who have not gone to the trouble of finding out the difference between £266,000 and £548,000, there is no means of arguing with them.
I wish to point out that by keeping his election pledge now he will bring in revenue to the Department, which was always working at a loss, and it is time to do it.
The Deputy did not say that that was the policy of his Party. He did not say if his Party are standing behind that policy. If they are, they ought to say it. So far as any tangible contribution to actual saving on the Post Office from the other side is concerned, the only contribution, in addition to Deputy Corry's suggestion of wiping out the bonus, came from Deputy Lemass, and that was that we ought to consider the salaries of our officials which exceed £1,000. As regards salaries which exceed £1,000, the Deputy will find on examination that there is only one official who has a substantive salary exceeding £1,000, and that is the Secretary. We have had it emphasised from the Benches opposite that the Post Office ought to be run as a business and commercial institution. I put it to Deputy Lemass that if a business institution, controlling and handling the amount of work that the Post Office controls, dealing with an expenditure of approximately two and half millions per year, existed in the country, would he think it too much to pay the head of two, three, four or five departments controlling that institution £1,000 year?
It is a liquidator you would be putting in.
Apparently he wants to have it both ways. He wants to run it as a business concern and at the same time pay these salaries.
What did you pay your Ambassador when you had one in America?
Does he stand over paying a bonus of £234 on a salary of £1,000?
A DEPUTY
What did you spend when you were over there?
Very little, and what I spent I earned.
Let us keep to the Post Office figures, and let us forget about the Farmers' Party.
Deputy Hogan (Clare) referred to the Telephone Directory and the advisability of not having it in its present alphabetical form, but in circumscribed areas. As a matter of fact, the Directory did exist at one time in that form, but there was a general expression of feeling in favour of the present system. There are some who suggest a reversion to the old system, but it is hard to know what people want—some want the old system and some the new. It is a matter which might be considered later on. Deputy Hogan also raised the question of rural porterage charges. A good deal of reference was made to my past Dáil history in that regard and the statements I made. It is a matter which I have given a great amount of consideration to since I became Parliamentary Secretary, and I do hold the opinion that rural porterage charges are somewhat too high. That, in fact, the man who receives a telegram, as things now exist, has to pay the full cost of the delivery—the payment covers the full cost, whereas the sender does not pay the full cost of delivery. There is still a loss. Possibly that loss might be distributed. I am considering the matter, and hope to put before the Minister for Finance some suggestions which, if accepted, might have the effect of some reduction in the cost of porterage in rural areas. All these suggestions must be governed by financial conditions, as any alteration or change of that kind must mean loss of revenue to the Post Office.
Deputy Flinn thought fit to indulge in some caustic remarks with regard to the postal service and with regard to me as Secretary in charge of postal service. When I hear Deputy Flinn starting to speak in this House I always think of Goldsmith's "Deserted Village" and the school-teacher with all the children surrounding him, and looking up at him with admiration, and of the words:—
"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew
How one small head could carry all he knew."
I can imagine the Fianna Fáil Party looking with wonder and with expressions of admiration upon Deputy Flinn and his wonderful exposition of economies, and wondering how one small head could carry all he knew. Having listened to the mountain groaning in labour and hoping it would produce something, the only concrete suggestion that emanated from the Deputy's speech was that we should put into this Department a superman, just as the Deputy would put a superman into all the other departments. Knowing from Deputy Flinn's method of delivery and from his whole action in the Dáil, the very egotistical ideas that possessed him I suggest his notion is that he himself should be the superman that would be put in to take charge of the Post Office.
A DEPUTY
And a good change, too.
And if he were put in charge he would bring about these wonderful changes that he suggested would take place.
Would you back your suggestion by resigning?
Deputy MacEntee by implication is trying to make capital out of certain recent changes that took place. For the information of Deputies on the other side of the House, I wish to say that the principal reason that actuated the Farmers' Party and which has actuated me as leader of the Farmer's Party in taking the action we did was the fear that if we did not take that action we might have men like Deputy Flinn put in charge of the Departments of the country. I think I have now covered the many points raised by Deputies. In my general statement I covered, as far as possible, the present policy of the Post Office. I want to apologise for having been unduly long and perhaps having read that statement rather hurriedly, but the statement will be on the records of the Dáil and doubtless Deputies can amuse themselves and enlighten themselves on the subject by reading it.
There is one question I would like to have cleared up; that is the discrepancy between the Estimates, as issued in the Book, and the Estimates of receipts and expenditure presented by the Executive Council. In the course of his speech the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that I, apparently, had omitted from my calculation the allowance made for services rendered to other departments. He referred to page 252 of the Estimates. On that page I find that the total amount which was really spent upon this Department, or which it was proposed to spend on it, was £2.625,320. The estimated value of the services rendered by the Post Office Department to other Departments is £250,000. Subtracting that amount I find that, allowing for the services rendered to other departments, the net cost is £2,375,000. The actual figure furnished in the White Paper is £2,425,000, and the difference between them is £50,000. I pointed out in my speech that last year this Department had made a net loss of £360,000, but on the figures furnished by the Executive Council, apparently under the advice and guidance of the Parliamentary Secretary, it was anticipated that next year there would be a loss of £673,000. There is a correction of £50,000 to be made, but that still leaves an estimated loss of £623,000. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to reconcile that loss with the actual loss of £360,000 for last year. Is it because he anticipates that in the current year the Department will be run with much greater efficiency, or lesser efficiency, than last year to the extent of £260,000?
It is extremely difficult to deal with amateur economists who have not gone to the trouble of looking up the figures. The Deputy in effect is comparing two things not comparable. He is comparing the difference between estimated expenditure and receipts, plus certain adjustments, shown in this book with the commercial accounts. If he will examine the commercial accounts he will see that there are many other things taken into account, such as depreciation, interest, and so on.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say——
Will the Deputy allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer when he asks him a question?
You cannot compare the estimates, as I pointed out, of expenditure, less revenue, less certain other adjustments for certain departments, with the commercial accounts. You must examine the commercial accounts, and these are very complicated and would take several hours of close examination before they could be adequately discussed. He is comparing two things that are not comparable. I pointed out, in my opening statement, which I will read again.
DEPUTIES
"No, no."
The Parliamentary Secretary need not read it again. I will put the Question.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question?
No; I am going to put the Question.
I suggest I am entitled——
The Deputy gets up at the end of a speech and asks a question——
I want to know——
You must not interrupt me.
I think that is unfair.
DEPUTIES
"Oh, oh."
It may be unfair, but the Deputy must not interrupt me.
If you want to protect the Parliamentary Secretary do so.
DEPUTIES
"Order."
I think the Deputy should withdraw that. I want no protection of that kind except against disorder.
I want to know where I am going to get the commercial accounts for 1926-27?
Deputy MacEntee asks a question and the Parliamentary Secretary proceeds to answer it. The Deputy interrupts him and does not listen. The Parliamentary Secretary proceeds to say that he will give certain figures and he is met with a howl of protest, and I took it that Deputies did not want the figures. I am now going to put the Question.
We got the figures, but we want the commercial accounts that he referred to.
You cannot get them now.
Tá
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Seán Brodrick.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- James Coburn.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- William Davin.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter De Loughrey.
- James N. Dolan.
- Edward Doyle.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- John Goulding.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killiela.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Buckley.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.