I move that the Telegraph Bill be received for final consideration.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - TELEGRAPH BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE.
The purpose of the Telegraph Bill is to legalise the increase of the minimum charge for the sending of a telegram from 1/- to ?.
That is not the purpose of the Bill.
I think it is.
As the Minister for Finance said on the Second Reading of the Bill, the purpose of this Bill is "To enable changes in the rates of charges for telegrams which I outlined in my Budget statement to be given effect to."
That is not the purpose of the Bill.
I submit that this raises a very serious matter, for when the Minister was introducing the Bill and speaking on the Second Stage, he said that was the purpose of the Bill, and when he was introducing a matter of that kind the House should be prepared to take his word for it, and they did, apparently, take his word for it, that the purpose of the Bill was to enable changes in the rates of charges for telegrams to be given effect to.
Yes.
The debate on the Second Reading was on that basis. When the Bill was going through the Committee Stage there was an amendment down in the name of Deputy Cole to the effect that the number of words that could be sent for ? should be increased from twelve to eighteen. That amendment was not moved. I think it is very probable some other Deputy might have introduced a similar amendment if Deputy Cole had not tabled his. They were prevented from doing so by the fact that Deputy Cole had tabled his amendment and did not move it. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled that no other Deputy could move the amendment at that stage, and the matter went by the default. I hope that the Bill will be recommitted in order to give some Deputy the opportunity of reintroducing the amendment Deputy Cole did not move, to enable a discussion to take place upon it.
The Deputy wants to know if he can move to re-commit the Bill. Standing Order 91 reads:—
On the Order of the day being read for the consideration of a Bill on Report, the Dáil shall proceed to consider the same unless a motion is made to re-commit the Bill either wholly or in respect of certain sections: Provided. however, that a motion to re-commit may be made at any time during the consideration of a Bill on Report.
Standing Order 92 is as follows:—
If a motion to re-commit a Bill be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Deputy who moves, and a statement from a Deputy who opposes any such motion, respectively, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon.
The Deputy will note there "the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement." Will there be opposition?
Yes.
My purpose in moving that the Bill be re-committed is because of the fact that an amendment which occurred to a number of Deputies on this side was tabled by Deputy Cole but was not moved by him. We did not table a similar amendment because of the fact that Deputy Cole's amendment appeared on the Order Paper. When he did not move that amendment we were not permitted to do so. We would be anxious to have a discussion on the amendment in Committee.
There was ample time to move an amendment in similar terms to Deputy Cole's amendment on the Report Stage.
The Standing Order appears to provide for what has actually happened—a motion to re-commit a Bill, an explanatory statement from the Deputy who moves for the re-committal, and a statement opposing. The Ceann Comhairle may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon. There appears to be given a discretion to the Chair as to whether the Chair will or will not put the question thereon. In this particular instance, the question is largely one of order. An amendment was put down on the Committee Stage of the Bill, but that amendment was not moved. Deputy Lemass now desires to re-commit the Bill because he wishes to consider that amendment in Committee. But it was, in fact, open to any Deputy who wished to put down an amendment in the exact terms of Deputy Cole's amendment. to do so on the Report Stage. Since Deputy Cole's amendment had not been defeated, an identical amendment would have been in order and could have been moved on the Report Stage. As no such amendment appeared on the Paper, and since no notice of such amendment has been given, I cannot see that it would be reasonable to put the motion for the re-committal of the Bill now. The Ceann Comhairle, therefore, refuses to put the question.
Does the Standing Order not definitely state: "If a motion to re-commit a Bill be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Deputy who moves, and a statement from a Deputy who opposes any such motion, respectively, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon"?
"May, if he thinks fit."
There is some discretion.
In this particular instance no good purpose could be served by going into Committee because there is no amendment to be discussed. The purpose of Deputy Lemass has been accomplished and I am refusing to put the question. Deputy Lemass may now continue on the main motion.
The reason which the Minister for Finance gave in justification of this additional charge for telegrams was that the loss on the Post Office of £150,000 last year would be reduced by £69,000 this year. Deputies will remember that in the discussion upon the Second Reading of the Bill a number of Deputies expressed grave doubts as to whether or not any saving would result from the additional charge. It was contended that the result of the increased charge would mean such a decrease in the use of the telegraphic service that the estimated saving would not materialise and that, in fact, it was possible a much greater loss would result than did, in fact, result last year. The telegraph service is one that has shown, in respect of inland telegrams at any rate, a continuous decline during the last five years. It is, however, to be remarked, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the rate of decline has gradually been slowing up. Figures which have been made available for us by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs indicate that was so. In the case of foreign and Press telegrams the figures indicate that instead of a decline there has been a steady increase. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in one respect, at any rate, the statement concerning this service which he submitted in reply to a question by Deputy Good on the 16th May last, was incorrect and that the figures given in relation to Press telegrams did not refer to telegrams at all but to the number of pages of telegrams which were handed in.
In the year 1923-24, the number of inland telegrams handed in at the post offices in the Saorstát was 3,676,521. The number of telegrams handed in for the year 1924-25 was 3,425,392, representing a decrease on the previous year of approximately 250,000 telegrams. In the year 1925-26 the number of inland telegrams handed in amounted to 3,193,541, a decrease on the amount of the previous year almost equal to the amount by which the previous year had been less than 1923-24, but not quite as great a decrease. In the year 1926-27, the number of telegrams handed in was 2,991,667, and in the year 1927-28 the number handed in was 2,904,980, which represented a decrease of only 87,000 in the previous year as compared with the decrease of 250,000 between the years 1924-25 and 1923-24.
It does appear from these figures that in respect of inland telegrams some possibility exists of the figures remaining stationary in the course of a couple of years if this additional charge is not imposed. The graph representing the decrease would be a curve and not a straight line, and a curve which if it continued as at present would ultimately straighten out. Also as against the decline in inland telegrams we have to put the fact that in respect of foreign telegrams and press telegrams there has been a continuous increase. In 1923-24 the foreign telegrams handed in numbered 36,639. In the year 1924-25 the number increased to 43,725, an increase of almost 7,000. In the year 1925-26 the number of telegrams handed in for foreign parts was 48,519, an increase of about 5,000; in the year 1926-27 the number was 57,463, an increase of almost 9,000; and in the year 1927-28 the number of telegrams handed in for foreign places at the Post Offices in the Saorstát was 55,885. The same applies to press telegrams, but I do not propose to quote the figures relating to press telegrams because to an extent the figures have been admitted to be inaccurate. The total number of telegrams handed in at the Post Office show a steady decrease, a decrease amounting almost to 700,000 during the five years. The figures are as follows:—
For the year 1923-24 the total number of telegrams handed in was 3,759,709. For the year 1924-25 the total number of telegrams handed in was 3,506,165. For the year 1925-26 the total number of telegrams handed in was 3,223,128. For the year 1926-27 the total number of telegrams handed in was 3,083,292. For the year 1927-28 the total number of telegrams handed in was 3,002,217.
It is contended by the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs that the losses on the telegraphic service are due to the fact that there has been a steady replacement of the service by the telephone, particularly in Dublin, and in similar districts, thus depriving the telegraphic service of the short-distance messages which are the most remunerative part of their business. It does, however, appear that the decrease in the number of telegrams handed in at the Post Office in Dublin for example, is only proportionate to the decrease throughout the rest of the country and that the explanation for the loss in the service, a loss which has been continuously reduced, is not that stated by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The number of telegrams handed in at post offices in Dublin, exclusive of Press telegrams——
Is not the House already in possession of all this information that the Deputy is giving now?
Oh, possibly. I agree, but at the same time I think I am entitled to quote the figures in order to prove my point. The significance of the figures may not have been grasped by some of the Deputies.
Only some.
In the year 1923-24 the number of telegrams handed in at the Dublin post offices, exclusive of Press telegrams, was 900,229. In 1924-25 the number was 816,587. In 1925-26 the number was 768,690.
Will the Deputy tell us what was the number at the year of the Flood?
I will put down a question to the Parliamentary Secretary if the Deputy requires the information, but I have not got it at the moment.
This sounds like a Second Reading speech.
I do not know if Deputy Byrne was born in that year or if he has any personal information concerning it.
Very interesting.
In the year 1926-27 the number of telegrams handed in at the post offices in Dublin only exclusive of Press telegrams was 742,694. In the year 1927-28 that number had decreased to 710,897. It will be seen from that that although there has been undoubtedly a decrease in the number of telegrams handed in at post offices in Dublin, the decrease was only proportionate to the decrease throughout the rest of the country. I read for the benefit of Deputies the total figures in respect of the rest of the country. If they have forgotten them I am prepared to read them again, but the fact does remain that while there has been a decrease between the year 1927-28 as compared with the year 1923-24 of slightly less than 200,000 in Dublin, the decrease in respect of the rest of the country was 700,000 during these five years. But in fact the volume of trade handed in in Dublin is just one-third of the volume of trade in the rest of the country. It indicates that the decline in Dublin has not been at any greater rate than in the rest of the country. That fact is also borne out by the figures in respect of the receipts of expenditure in connection with the service. At least it is by the figures in connection with the receipts. It is not borne out by the figures in connection with the expenditure. When I come to these figures I hope to be able to indicate that the saving of £69,000 which the Minister hopes to get as a result of the increased charges can be secured if a saving on the service was effected in Dublin proportionate to the decline in the service.
In the year 1923/24 the receipts from the telegraphic service in Dublin were £63,890; in the year 1924/25 the receipts were £62,360; in the year 1925/26 the receipts were £60,276 and in the year 1926/27 the receipts were £54,984. In the year 1927/28 the receipts were £53,256. The figure for the year 1923/24 was £63,890 and for the year 1927/28 £53,256, representing a loss of some £10,600 in the City of Dublin —a decrease, not a loss. In the rest of the country the receipts for the year 1923/24 were £202,317; for the year 1924/25 the receipts were £197,473; for the year 1925/26 the receipts were £190,875; for the year 1926/27 the receipts were £174,110 and for the year 1927/28 the receipts from the telegraphic service for the rest of the Saorstát outside Dublin were £168,644, representing a total decrease in the receipts of some £34,000 as between 1923/24 and 1927/28.
Thus it will be seen that while the receipts from the service of the rest of the Saorstát decreased by a sum of £34,000 out of a total trade represented by the figure £168,000, the decrease in Dublin was only £10,000 out of a total trade represented by the figure £53,000.
On a point of order, with reference to your ruling on Standing Order Number 92——
With reference to recommittal?
Yes.
I do not think that a point of order can be raised now.
I submit that it is a matter of very great importance— a question of the interpretation of that particular Article.
Standing Order 92?
Yes. I thought it extraordinary myself that it could have been left by any Standing Order to the discretion of the Chair to prevent a division on any question, and when I read this rule originally it seemed to me that it gave the Chair discretionary power simply as to the number of speakers. That was the interpretation I had until the Chair ruled otherwise. On re-reading the paragraph in Standing Order 92 I thought that possibly the Chair was right in its interpretation, but on reading it a second time and comparing it with a similar power given under Article 82 in regard to the First Stage of a Bill, I am inclined, in fact, I am certain, so far as my own mind is concerned, that my first interpretation was correct. You will notice that in Article 82 we have precisely the same words used in regard to the First Stage. I had better read the whole of Article 82 and Article 92 in order to compare them. Article 82 reads:—
"When a Bill is to be initiated in the Dáil, the title of the Bill, and a short description of its purpose, prepared by the proposer, and accepted by the Ceann Comhairle, shall appear on the Order Paper. The Deputy giving notice shall move for leave to introduce the Bill."
Now this is the point:
"If such a motion be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement from the Deputy who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon. If leave to introduce the Bill be given, an Order shall be made for its Second Reading, and the Bill shall be printed."
Has it ever been suggested that the phrase, "if he thinks fit," meant giving power to the Chair to prevent a question being put, or to say that the procedure on the Fourth Stage is different from that on the First?
That is the whole difference.
There is no difference.
There is.
Order, order.
In Article 92 we have precisely the same words. It says:—
"If a motion to re-commit a Bill be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle, after permitting an explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Deputy who moves, and a statement from the Deputy who opposes any such motion, respectively, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon."
The words are precisely the same in both cases and we always had the interpretation, so far as I know, as regards the first part meaning that the discretion given to the Chair was simply that of permitting further speeches or not—that is, restricting the debate. The Chair in Article 92 takes up an extraordinary position, that is, it is assumed that the occupant of the Chair could prevent the House from deciding by division on any question before it. I hold that nobody drawing up Standing Orders would think for a moment of giving the Chair such power. I hold that if we take these two Articles together the ruling of the Chair in respect to re-committal is contrary altogether to what has been the interpretation, by practice and common sense, of Article 92.
If the Deputy had put that point of view before the ruling was given——
I regret that I did not then see it in its full meaning. I thought I was wrong at first.
A decision has already been given on the interpretation of Standing Order 92, and there is no reason now why that decision should be altered. The position in regard to re-committal on the Report Stage is altogether different to that on First Reading. That particular point of order cannot be re-opened now. It may arise again when a motion is made to re-commit a Bill under Standing Order 92. The question which the Deputy is arguing now may then be put and an endeavour made to get the Chair to alter the decision given in this particular instance. The decision given in this particular instance must stand.
I quite understand the position of the Chair. I know it is awkward when one has to give a decision on the spur of the moment. For instance, when I read the Standing Order rapidly at first I thought that the Chair was taking the natural interpretation of it. I hold, however, that this is a very serious matter which affects the privileges of the House as a whole. I suggest that the Chair should give the earliest opportunity of reconsidering that matter.
The Deputy can raise the question of a particular ruling by putting down a motion, but the way the ruling can be reconsidered is when the point arises again and the whole question of the Standing Order can be argued in the particular circumstances then arising. The decision already given cannot, however, be argued.
As a rule I am not persistent about matters in which there is a reasonable attitude taken up.
What does the Deputy suggest?
I suggest that the Chair should recognise that there was a decision given which appeared to me, when I read the Standing Order rapidly, to be reasonable, but which has far-reaching consequences. I hold that the proper thing to do would be to admit that there was an interpretation which was more consistent with the practice under another Article, and permit the question of re-committal to be discussed.
Are we getting into an argument on the merits of this question? I object to Deputy de Valera's statement drawing any analogy between giving the Chair leave to refuse to put a motion that a Bill be received for the First Time and giving the Chair discretion to prevent a Bill being re-committed on Report.
There are two entirely different considerations arising under the two Standing Orders. The position is now, a decision having been given, that that particular matter is closed. If the Deputy considers that any consequences flow from that decision, as soon as the consequences actually arise that matter could be raised as a point of order. Nothing can happen until a decision of the Chair is again called for on Standing Order 92, and when that point arises it can be argued, but we cannot go back on the decision given already.
Does it not seem unreasonable if there is——
Does it not seem unreasonable if there is——
Order, order.
The position is that the Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order, and it is his business and duty to interpret Standing Orders. In this instance, he has interpreted a Standing Order, and until that point arises again that decision stands and cannot be re-opened. I have, in fact, serious doubts whether Deputy de Valera is within his rights in raising the matter until the consequences that might flow from the decision arise.
They are flowing at this moment.
Deputy Lemass.
I hope that Deputies have not lost the thread of the argument which I was making to show that the additional charge proposed by this Bill is not justified. If any Deputy thinks that it will be necessary for me to go over all the figures again I am prepared to do so. A couple of Deputies here are anxious that I would do so. If it is necessary I will. I hope to be able to indicate that the charge is not justified on the strength of arguments other than those I have already advanced. It has been shown that the loss on the telegraph service is not due to the main cause advanced by the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary. As I stated, it was their contention that the loss on the telegraph service exists and will exist because in and around Dublin and the big towns the telephone is interfering with that service, and the telegraph service is losing the most remunerative part of its business. I have shown on the figures supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary that the decrease in receipts from the service in Dublin is no greater than that for the rest of the country.
I am prepared to admit that these figures as all the figures which we receive, in respect of the Post Office service are disputable. Their accuracy can be impunged. In fact some of the figures in respect of Press telegrams, which I read, are admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to be inaccurate. Although we find that the decrease in the number of telegrams sent and the receipts from the service in Dublin are smaller in proportion to the decrease both in the number of the telegrams and the receipts from the rest of the country, the expenses of the service in Dublin have not decreased in proportion to the decrease in the expenses of the service throughout the rest of the country. It is in this respect that I hope to be able to indicate that the £69,000, which the Minister optimistically hopes to get as a result of the increased charge, can be certainly obtained in another way and cannot be obtained in the way which it is sought. The expenses of the telegraph service during the five years ending the 31st March, 1928, were as follows: For Dublin city alone, the expenses of the service in 1923-24 were £152,600, in the year 1924-25 the expenses were £144,600; in the year 1925-26 the expenses were £136,800; in the year 1926-27 the expenses were £129,300; in the year 1927-28 the expenses were £124,000.
It will be seen therefore that the decrease in the expenses in the service, in Dublin city, taking the year 1927-28 as compared with the year 1923-24, was only £26,000, taken in comparison with the figure of £124,000 which represents the total expenditure. In the rest of the Saorstát however the expenses of the telegraph services in the year 1923-24 were £457,935. That figure had decreased in the year 1924-25 to £293,740. It further decreased in the year 1925-26 to £277,794. For the year 1926-27 the figure is £274,789 and for the year 1927-28 the figure is £277,100. The decrease in the expense of the service for the rest of the Saorstát during these five years was almost £180,000. We must take that figure in relation to the figure of £277,000, which represents the entire expenditure on the services throughout the rest of the Saorstát. It will be seen therefore that the decrease in the number of telegrams handled and in the receipts of the service has proceeded in Dublin district proportionately to the rest of the country. There has been no greater decrease in Dublin than in the rest of the country. It will also be seen that while there has been practically no decrease in the expenditure on the service in Dublin, there has been nearly 50 per cent. of a decrease in the expenditure throughout the rest of the country. The total expense of the telegraph services for the five years is as follows: For the year 1923-24 £610,535, for the year 1924-25 £438,370, for the year 1925-26 £414,594, for the year 1926-27 £404,089, for the year 1927-28 £401,600. These figures as I said prove conclusively that the main excuse for opposing the increased charge, which was advanced during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and during the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, is not founded on fact.
I have already stated that these figures must of course be taken very largely with a grain of salt because we have found that figures supplied in respect of the Post Office varied considerably and cannot be used as a reliable basis on which to calculate the position of the Post Office. The Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs stated that the average cost per telegram was ? of which I think the senders paid on the average 1/1½ and the State paid the balance, 1/3½.
took the Chair.
The Minister for Finance, however, has been apparently supplied with different information because he stated on the Second Reading of the Bill that the average cost of a telegram handed in at a Saorstát post office was 2/7, a difference of 2d. and he stated that the average receipt per telegram was 1/3½. His calculation of the loss per telegram was the same as that of the Parliamentary Secretary but as regards the actual receipts per telegram his calculation is 2d. more than the calculation of the Parliamentary Secretary. Now we propose to increase the minimum charge for telegrams to ?. This Bill proposes:—
"The charges to be fixed under Section 2 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for the transmission of ordinary written telegrams throughout Saorstát Eireann shall uniformly and without regard to distance be at a rate not exceeding one shilling and sixpence for the first twelve words of each ordinary written telegram or for each ordinary written telegram of less than twelve words (counting as part of such twelve words the names and addresses of the sender and addressee of the telegram) and not exceeding one penny for each additional word over twelve words, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, direct that an additional sum of sixpence shall be charged in respect of telegrams handed in for transmission on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Sunday."
The effect of the passing of this Bill will be that the minimum charge for the sending of a telegram in Saorstát Eireann will be ?, whereas formerly it was 1/-.
It says "shall not exceed 1/6."
I grant that. I see the catch now. I have been a long time trying to find it. It is like fixing a minimum price for anything. It immediately becomes the maximum price and if we decide that the charge for telegrams must not exceed ?, is there any Deputy who believes that he will get it for ?? I do not think there is. I do not think so. In fact the Minister stated when introducing the Bill—I will read what he said—
The Deputy read it before.
No, this is an entirely new part. He said: "We feel that too much is being expended out of general taxation. It is proposed, as I indicated, to increase the minimum charge from 1/- to ?."
Although the Bill only authorises the Minister to fix a charge not exceeding 1/6, he has already declared his intention to fix the minimum charge at 1/6. We find that the State is faced with a loss of 1/3½ per telegram. On the calculation of the Minister for Finance, the average cost of sending a telegram is 2/7. The average receipt per telegram is 1/3½. It is to be presumed, if there is no decrease in the number sent, that the average receipt per telegram after this Bill has become law will be, not 1/3½, or 1/6, but 1/9½. Some Deputies appear to dissent from that calculation. I hope before the Bill passes the Report Stage they will indicate in what way that calculation is wrong.
It is not very difficult.
The fact remains, however, that when the maximum charge for a telegram was a shilling per dozen words, the average receipt was 1/3½. If there is no decrease in the number sent and if the average length of each telegram remains constant, the average receipt per telegram in future should be——
I beg to draw attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
Mr. SHEEHY
I am not surprised, as I saw the Deputy beckoning other Deputies to go out.
We are not going to keep a House for you.
The Deputy could only persuade two of his own Party— one and the speaker—to remain.
We are not going to keep a House for you. If you want to carry on your business, you must keep your own House.
Mr. SHEEHY
You showed contempt for your own colleague by ordering Deputies out.
House counted and twenty Deputies being present—
The Deputy may now proceed.
The interest which the House has shown in the figures I have given is quite extraordinary. The fact is that there does appear to be general confusion with respect to the telegraph service and the charges which are necessary in relation to that service. Therefore, when an attempt is made to supply fairly accurate information concerning it, I am glad to see that Deputies are trooping in to hear it.
They are not trooping in behind the Deputy.
If the calculations of the Minister for Finance are correct, the average receipt for telegrams should be 1/9½ after the passing of this Bill. If that is wrong, I should like to be shown where it is wrong. I presume that there will be no increase in the average cost of sending a telegram, if the number sent remains stationary, and that the average cost will remain as at present, 2/7. There will then be a loss of 9½. per telegram, and the State will have to subsidise the service by an amount which I calculate to approximate to £110,000. Three million 9½ds. comes to about £110,000. If the loss in the service was £150,000 last year, as stated by the Minister, and if the loss this year is to be £110,000, it is quite obvious that the gain to the Exchequer from the passing of this Bill will be £40,000 and not the £69,000, on which the Minister is reckoning. From the figures I have read out, and which I am prepared to read out again if necessary, it will be seen that if the expenses of the service had been decreased in Dublin, in proportion to the decrease in the expenses of the service throughout the rest of the country, that gain of £40,000 could have been already secured in great measure without any additional charge.
The Bill proposes to do more than increase the maximum charge for telegrams from 1/- to 1/6. It proposes that on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays an additional sum of 6d. shall be charged in respect of telegrams handed in for transmission. No argument was advanced as to why it is necessary to charge that additional sum, and no figures were given which would indicate that any increased saving would result, or that there would be any benefit to the Exchequer in consequence of the enactment of the measure in that respect. Is it the intention of the Department to ensure that telegraph offices will remain open on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays for the receipt of telegrams? If they are shut I do not see that any useful purpose is to be served by announcing that an increased charge will be imposed, when it will not be possible to send a telegram for love or money. It is possible that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform us that the post offices will remain open on these days and that the ordinary telegraph service will be conducted at the increased charge imposed.
Sub-section (2) states that: "In this section the expression ‘written telegram' includes a telegram received at a post office by telephone in order that it may be delivered as a written telegram." I should like to know if that sub-section is necessary. Was it not fixed by the telegraph Act of 1885 that the expression "written telegram" did in fact include a telegram received at a post office by telephone in order that it might be delivered as a written telegram? Certainly there has been the usual charge imposed in respect of a telegram received in that manner in the past.
Sub-section (3) states that: "Paragraph 1 of the proviso of Section 2 of the Telegraph Act of 1885, and subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Post Office and Telegraph Act of 1920 are hereby repealed." I regret that we did not hear from the Minister, when introducing the Bill, or from the Parliamentary Secretary, when apologising for it, to what these Acts relate. I regret that I did not notice them in the Bill myself, or I might have produced a copy of the Acts referred to for the purpose of informing the House concerning them. If, however, it is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary or Minister to reply, I hope he will be able to inform the House what exactly the House is doing when it passes that sub-section. I hope there are no Deputies who are going to vote for a sub-section in a Bill that they do not understand, and that, as elected representatives, they will know clearly what exactly is being done when that sub-section is being passed before they vote for it. It is a very bad principle that Deputies should vote for a Bill or a section about which they know nothing. I myself intend to vote against the Bill because that sub-section is in it and I know nothing about it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that it is his duty to the House, to Deputies on the far side as much as to Deputies here, to inform them as to what that section means.
"This Act may be cited as the Telegraph Act, 1928." I think that Section 2 is in need of alteration. It says "this Act may be cited." I wonder if it could not be made mandatory. It says that it "may" be cited as "the Telegraph Act of 1928." If Deputies had to read the long title on every occasion it would mean a waste of time. I hope for the reasons I have given, and for other reasons, that will occur to other Deputies that this Bill will be rejected at this stage. First, because it increases the charge and is not going to benefit the Exchequer; second, because the increased charge by resulting in a decrease in the use of the telegraph service, may result in an increased loss to the Exchequer; and, thirdly, because no explanation is given in reference to an important section of the Bill and Deputies are in the dark concerning it.
Deputy Lemass has taken great pains to try to point out to the House many of the reasons why we on this side object to the passing of the Bill. But there is one point that I would like to draw the attention of the Deputies to, and it is this: We had a discussion not so many weeks ago on the Dental Bill and Deputies tried to impress the House with the difficulties that might arise where certain arrangements made for citizens of Saorstát Eireann would not hold good outside and, particularly, in the Six-County Area. Subsequently it was pointed out that to overcome that difficulty a reciprocal arrangement was made whereby our Dental Register would be recognised in the Six-County Area and in Great Britain and whereby we would in turn recognise the register of these outside areas. Here we have a position where the Minister for Finance, in order to try and make up portion of the loss on the Post Office, decides to change the minimum charge for certain telegrams from 1/- to 1/6. But what is the position with those people who live on the border of the Six-County Area? If they want to save an extra 6d., which is the difference in a telegram, all they need do is to go across the border into the Six-County Area and send a telegram, at the old rate of 1/-, into Saorstát Eireann, and we have no means of recoupment. In fact, not only do we lose the chance of the extra 6d. but we, also, lose the initial amount handed in with the telegram.
Deputy Lemass has given figures pointing out the continual decrease in the number of telegrams in several areas in Saorstát Eireann. I think that this change in the minimum price will not only mean less sending of messages by wire, but also because of the increased price the postal authorities in the Twenty-Six Counties will lose a certain amount of customers, if I may use the term, living on the Border who will then take advantage of the postal arrangements in the Six Counties. I have not the figures as to the actual number of post offices or the number of telegrams handed in in any financial year in or near the Border. Nor have I information as to the number of post offices outside our own border-line, but I think it is a matter that should have been laboured a little more. Personally, I believe if this Bill is passed, and put into effect, the working of the Act at the end of the financial year will prove that not only will there be a further decrease in the number of telegrams handed in, but it will also be found that the amount realised from telegrams will be far short of the amount that the Minister for Finance expected to make by the change in the minimum charge from 1/- to 1/6.
I have another objection and it is this: Deputy Jasper Wolfe it was, think, that pointed out a case in the country which he knew where this change from a minimum of 1/- to 1/6 would result in serious loss.
Pardon me, I am not guilty. I made no reference to any such case.
I may be mistaken with regard to the Deputy, but there was one Deputy who said he knew an individual in the country to whom this change in the minimum charge from 1/- to 1/6 would mean an extra expenditure of £50 per annum. I have been making inquiries and I find that particularly those people interested in the export of eggs who have to send out daily a great number of telegrams, will be seriously affected where they have to wire to their agents outside the Twenty-Six-County area, particularly in England, stating the number of eggs they have for sale, the prices, and so forth.
What about the furniture merchants and the telegrams they send?
I do not know any furniture merchants selling furniture outside. I feel that this change in the cost of telegrams, while it may not seriously affect those who send out wires of sporting events or congratulatory messages, will fall very heavily on the shoulders of the farming community who are continually in telegraphic communication with agents outside, particularly in connection with the export of cattle, poultry and eggs. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will reassure me on the points I mentioned. He may have arrangements whereby in regard to telegrams handed in in the Six County area or in Great Britain, the extra charge of 6d. will be collected there for the Saorstát.
I do know this, that where international arrangements are made with regard to postal arrangements, if telegraphic communication in any country is expensive the rates for telegrams from any other country are fixed so that the country receiving the telegram is recouped to a certain extent. Possibly some arrangement may be made whereby telegrams handed in in England would be charged an extra sixpence there which would come to our Exchequer. We could again go into the whole administration of the Postal Department, and we could point out that certain sections of it——
The Deputy certainly cannot go into the whole administration of the Postal Department on this Bill.
I am not going to do so.
The Deputy said that he could go into it. I say that he cannot.
Yes, but not at this particular moment.
You lost your opportunity.
We will have another opportunity.
We will get an indication of appreciation from somebody.
And waste more time.
What I want to bring in is this: The reason given by the Minister for Finance for this change is because there is a loss on that Department of the Post Office. I contend that, on account of his having used that as a reason for making a change in the minimum rate, which used to be a shilling but which, if this Bill passes, will be 1/6. that is an argument that can be used again when people who oppose the Bill are speaking on it. That will be subject to the ruling of the Chair. But I contend that the Department of the Post Office that is concerned with the telegrams could have been to a certain extent reorganised, and that certain areas which were not——
The Deputy will have to keep to the Bill.
Very well. There is this that I would like to point out: We have already serious difficulties with regard to the telegraphic service. Outside the City areas you have instances where, because people live a certain distance from a post office, there is an extra charge at the rate of 6d. a mile when a telegram is delivered to them by special messenger——
That is not in the Bill.
It comes into the question of the cost of telegrams.
There is nothing in this Bill about it.
I will keep away from that if it is out of order. I would like to repeat that I consider quite seriously that this will not have the effect that the Minister anticipates. You are going to impose on people an extra burden of indirect taxation, particularly on people who are burdened enough already. It will not have the desired effect, from the Minister's point of view, of making up a portion of the deficit that exists in that branch of the postal service. We do know this, that people who will feel the effect of the extra 6d. will have to change to some other method, if there is another method available, which would be cheaper, and the result will be that we will have extra pressure on the telephones. We do know that at present, with the increased demand on the telephone service, there is enough pressure on it already, and what will really happen, I believe, is that you will have a greater loss on the telegraph end and greater inconvenience on the telephone end. If this Bill goes through I would ask Deputies to keep in their minds at the end of the financial year the figures quoted by Deputy Lemass and to ask questions then, compare the results, and see if the Minister will really have done any good in making up the deficiency, or portion of the deficiency, as this Bill is supposed to do.
I believe that I am capable of making as ridiculous, as irrelevant and as bad a speech as any member of the Opposition——
DEPUTIES
Agreed.
——in opposition to this Bill, and I believe I could do that without the aid of a decanter of water. I am a teetotaller, like other people.
Like other people?
Yes. Address the Chair, Deputy Flinn. But there is another aspect of this case. I do not hesitate to say that it is a perfect waste of the taxpayers' money to be reporting such drivel as we have heard here for the last two days.
And are hearing now.
On a point of order: Is a Deputy entitled to describe other Deputies' speeches as drivel? Surely a Deputy is not entitled to do that?
What else was it?
There is nothing unparliamentary in the expression, from the point of view of the Chair.
On a point of order: Do I understand that it is orderly to describe as drivel speeches which are delivered in the House?
I have drivel enough of my own if I wished to indulge in it.
I am not objecting in the slightest.
I say that it is a perfect waste of the taxpayers' money to be reporting, printing and circulating such speeches.
On a point of order: The Deputy has referred two or three times to county councils. Is he so unaware of the various appeals from his superiors—the Ministers—as to the dignity of this House that he wants to reduce it to the level of a county council?
It has gone a long way below the level of a county council.
A DEPUTY
Years ago.
I move that the question be now put.
I cannot accept it.
Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal do rá ar an gceist seo. Níl fhios agam conus mar atá an Ghaedhilg ag dul ar aghaidh i nOifig an Phuist. D'iarradh ar na daoine ar fuid na tíre Gaedhilg do labhairt agus leitreacha do sgríobhadh i nGaedhilg agus orduithe do chur suas i nGaedhilg ach níl puinn faoi seo san freagra a thug an Rúnaidhe Páirliminte——
Is the Deputy entitled to read his speech even though it is drivel?
Is truagh nách raibh an freagra a thug an Rúnaidhe Páirliminte do Theachta Good—ar a rinne Teachta Lemass trácht tamaill ó shoin—i nGaedhilg leis, mar tá sé líonta le uimhreacha. Ba mhaith liom a chur in úil do Theachta de Bhulbh gur deacair do Theachtaí cosamhail liom féin, nách bhfuil an Ghaedhilg rófhlúirseach acu, ná figiúirí seo d'aistriú.
Would the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate now?
Tairigim go gcuirtear an díosbóireacht ar ath-ló.
Debate adjourned.