It is the intention of Deputies on this side of the House to oppose this Bill. We do not think that the state of affairs in the Post Office, revealed to us by the Parliamentary Secretary during the debate on the Estimate for that service, is such as to justify any additional charge being made for the services which are being given, nor do we think that the benefit which can accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the increase will be sufficient to compensate for the extra charge which people will have to pay for sending telegrams. It is estimated that the saving which will be effected by the increase will be £66,000. That is a considerable sum, and the saving of it is a matter to which Deputies should give their attention. The question we have to ask ourselves is, whether or not the increase is in fact going to produce a saving of £66,000, or, alternatively, if it would not be possible to secure an equal saving by some other means.
As Deputy Redmond has pointed out, the estimate of £66,000 is apparently based altogether upon the unjustifiable assumption that there will be no decline in the number of telegrams sent. Since the debate upon the Estimates for this Department took place, Deputies have been put in the position of having fuller information concerning this service as a result of figures supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary on the 16th May in reply to a question by Deputy Good. A simple calculation made on these figures would indicate that if the number of telegrams handled by the Post Office after this increased charge has been imposed was to decrease by two-fifths the entire saving estimated would be wiped out. That calculation does not take into account the fact pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the unit loss on telegrams will be greater as the service decreases.
We have had many statements concerning this service given us by the Minister for Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. To the uninitiated these statements appear to be in conflict. It has been stated that the telegraph service is a declining one. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that it is not a dying service, and the figures given concerning the number of telegrams handled during the last year and previous years would indicate that perhaps the term "declining" is no more correct than the term dying as applied to it. The rate of decline appears to have been slowing up very considerably from year to year. There was a decrease of 251,000 in the number of telegrams sent in the year 1924-5 as compared with 1923-4, while the decrease in 1927-8, as compared with 1926-7, was only 87,000. The diminution in the decline has been steady. It would appear that when conditions get right in the service the decrease will stop altogether, and that it would be possible to review the service with a firmer basis for calculations concerning it.
The number of foreign telegrams handled has increased considerably since 1923. Since 1924 there has also been a substantial increase in the number of Press telegrams. The question, therefore, arises whether the attitude which the Ministry are taking up towards this service and the loss on it is a correct one. We have seen that there is a decided possibility that the decreased use of the service resulting from the increased charge will completely wipe out any possible saving and may, in fact, increase the loss. It is for Deputies to consider whether or not the actual saving which the Minister hopes to get could not be achieved by some other method than by increasing the charge.
As I said, we are placed in a difficult position for the purpose of making calculations by the conflicting statements concerning the service which have been made. It was, for example, stated frequently, I think, by the Minister for Finance and certainly by the Parliamentary Secretary, that one of the main reasons for the loss was that the increased use of the telephone in and around Dublin city had taken from the Post Office the most remunerative part of the service, that is, the short-distance telegrams. But it appears from the figures supplied in answer to Deputy Good's question that the receipts from the telegraph service in Dublin city from 1923 to 1927-8 decreased by £10,600, out of a total amount received in 1927-8 of £53,000. The decrease in receipts from the service in the rest of the country was only £33,700 out of a total in 1927-8 of £168,600. In other words, the decrease in Dublin city was only one-third of that in the rest of the country, and the actual receipts in Dublin city were one-third of the receipts in the rest of the country. It would appear, therefore, that the rate of decline in Dublin city has been exactly the same as in the rest of the country, and that the loss on the telegraph service cannot be ascribed to the cause stated.
When, however, we turn to the next table given showing the expenses of the telegraph service during the same years, we note a great difference between the figures. The expenses in Dublin City for 1923-4 were £152,600, and in 1927-8 £124-500, a decrease of 20 per cent. approximately. The expenses of the service for the rest of the Saorstát for 1923-4 amounted to £457,935, and they had gone down to £277,100 in 1927-8, a decrease of almost 50 per cent. It would appear, therefore, that while the receipts from the service have been decreasing at the same rate in the rest of the country as in Dublin, the expenses have been reduced by 50 per cent. in the rest of the country, and by only about 20 per cent in Dublin.
I think it will be admitted that the main expenditure on this service is on the salaries of the officials. We must assume, therefore, that there has been a rather drastic reduction in the number of officials employed throughout the rest of the country that has not been reproduced in the city. If the economy campaign has resulted in a decline in the service, as apparently it has, we are forced to the conclusion that the Ministry are on the wrong track concerning it. They are complaining about the decline in the service, and have attempted to compensate for that by creating the very position which is going to make the decline more noticeable; that is, by reduction of staffs in the country.
There is another matter on which I should like the Minister to give us additional information. He informed us that the average cost per telegram was 2/7, while the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the average cost was 2/5, and that the receipts per telegram were 1/3½, and that there was a loss of 1/- on each telegram. In the case of Press telegrams, however, for which the charge, I think, is only 2d. per dozen words, a calculation based upon the figures supplied would indicate that the loss per telegram is only 9¼d. As it must actually cost the Post Office the same amount to send a Press telegram as an ordinary telegram, we would like to have some explanation as to the reason for the loss upon ordinary telegrams being so much in excess of the loss upon Press telegrams.
