Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Jul 1949

Vol. 117 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 61—Posts and Telegraphs.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Everett)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £3,366,630 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1950, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (45 and 46 Vict., c. 74; 8 Edw. 7, c. 48; 1 and 2 Geo. 5, c. 26; the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1928; No. 14 of 1940 (secs. 30 and 31); No. 14 of 1942 (sec.23); etc.), and of certain other Services administered by that office.

A lot of unnecessary heat was raised on Thursday about this matter of free postage. Deputies must relate what I said about prepayment of letters to Government Departments to my earlier statement that the privilege of free postage was intended to apply to correspondence which was on the business of the State. There is no doubt in my mind, nor I should imagine in the minds of any Deputy that the privilege has been abused. Everyone will agree that abuses should be stopped. That is what I intended to do. But in trying to stop the abuse I do not intend to go further. So far as I am satisfied that the condition "on the business of the State" is fulfilled, I have no desire or intention to interfere with it.

Last Thursday Deputies made reference to the widow and the orphan and the poor man applying for a grant. If those people or any others are writing on the business of the State, their letters will be delivered in the ordinary way, whether they are prepaid or not. And as I hinted last Thursday the letters which Deputies send to Government Departments will be delivered in the future as in the past. The question of how my intentions can be achieved and how abuses can be stopped is something which is being considered as a matter of administration. Again I want to emphasise that what I want to do is to stop abuses and not to stop legitimate user of the privilege. I never intended and do not now intend to prevent persons sending letters to Departments without prepayment of postage as long as these letters are genuinely official letters and that is a public assurance from me. I do not stand for, and I think the House will not stand for, abuse of that privilege by persons who are well able to pay postage and should pay postage on private letters seeking contracts, requesting that special records be played on the radio and seeking autographs, etc.

Mr. Little

I move that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. This whole question turns on what is the interpretation of the term "State business". It seems to be clear, from what the Minister now says, that if people write into a Department about old age pensions or social services generally, that will be regarded as State business. How on earth the administration is going to distinguish between State business and personal business, I do not know. The officials will have to open a letter before they can surcharge it or else they will have to return the letter. I cannot see how this arrangement can be carried out at all administratively. I think, however, that we have succeeded at least, by what we have done, in stopping what might have been a very quick one, put across on us by the Department of Finance rather than by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. McGilligan

Why the Department of Finance?

Mr. Little

What happens is this. A very correct and rigid attitude is taken up by the Department of Finance, and rightly so, but it is the job of the Minister in charge of a Department to apply certain political considerations and to prevent the Minister for Finance from doing things which politically are extremely dangerous.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not very lucid. I have not got an explanation yet as to why the Minister for Finance is in on this.

Mr. Lemass

We shall assume it is so until the contrary is proved.

Mr. S. Collins

These are real Dáil Reporter's tactics.

Mr. Little

It is perfectly clear.

Mr. MacEntee

Ask Willie the Bouncer what it means to him.

Mr. Little

I think the situation is definitely clear and for the moment I shall leave it at that. There are a few other matters.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy moving that the Vote be referred back?

Mr. Little

Yes. I am not going to give any reasons whether we shall vote on it or not.

Mr. McGilligan

You have not given any reason yet for anything.

Mr. Little

The Minister for Finance has a perfectly impervious attitude.

Mr. Lemass

To reason or anything else.

Mr. Little

We shall leave it at that. There are a few other things about which we should like to remind the Minister for Finance. In his Budget statement last year, he never told us that he was going to increase the ordinary postal charges. They have brought in a very considerable sum we are told—£300,000.

Mr. McGilligan

For what?

Mr. Little

The increased postal charges.

Mr. McGilligan

Not on the prepaid business.

Mr. Little

I am finished with that and I think you are finished with it too.

Mr. McGilligan

I never got a penny out of it, and there was not a penny looked for.

Mr. Little

I am talking about the £300,000 you are getting out of increased postal charges. Then again, another very quick one was put across on the House and a protest was made by the Independent at the time against it, but the Minister's predecessor was blamed for it. That was for raiding the Post Office Savings Bank, out of which he got £466,000. That is a very serious matter. Power was taken under the Act of 1930 by which the Minister could take over to the Exchequer certain sums from the reserves of the Post Office Savings Bank. That was not materially touched by the Fianna Fáil administration.

Mr. McGilligan

Now! They took every penny they could.

Mr. Little

In general for 15 years it was not touched, but last year £466,000 was taken. Having regard to the fact that the savings had been invested in British securities and that there was a decrease in the value of the securities, money would naturally be required in order to restore the full value of the moneys lodged by these people in the bank. It was a very dangerous thing to touch these reserves.

Mr. McGilligan

You people did it.

Mr. Little

These people may be confronted with the necessity of returning that money to the Post Office Savings Bank. These are just the two other points to which I wished to draw the attention of the House.

Captain Cowan

I just want to make one point. The Minister promised that he would reconsider this matter but there is just one aspect which I should like to bring to his attention. I understand that under the Act which governs this matter of postage, the Minister for Finance has power to lay down general rules, but, in regard to exemptions, it is entirely a matter for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Under the law, any subject had the right to petition the King and there was no obligation on him, when he petitioned the King, to put a stamp on his letter. By the change of functions which we have had in this State, I suppose the President takes up the position of the King. Anyway, any citizen who has any doubt about whether he should pay postage or not on a document that he wants to send to the Government, could send it in the form of a petition to the President, in relation to an old age pension or in relation even to matters about which the Minister complains, as to whether certain people should be allowed on the air or not. If the citizens will adopt that procedure it will solve all the problems. Therefore, strictly speaking, the situation has not altered one way or the other. That is the position as I see it. Any citizen who is in doubt can write to the President in the form of a petition and the matter must be attended to by the Ministers of the Government.

Mr. Corry

I want to be quite clear as to what the Minister has just stated. The Minister told us last week that anybody who wanted to write to a Government Department should write to the Department and they would send him a franked envelope in return.

Captain Cowan

That was my suggestion.

Mr. Corry

That was the Minister's suggestion the last day—that a fellow was to send a letter with a 2½d. stamp on it and that the Department would send him back a franked envelope so that he could send the next letter for nothing, having paid 2½d. for a stamp for the first letter. I want to be a definite and clear as to what change the Minister is making in the position as regards the ordinary citizen of this State in writing to a Department. I would say there are close on 1,000,000 letters sent to Government Departments each year by people writing about old age pensions, about unemployment assistance, to the Board of Works on various matters and to the Revenue Commissioners about their income-tax. Then, undoubtedly, an enormous number of letters are written to the Department of Agriculture and to the Department of Lands. I want to know from the Minister if a poultry-keeper in my county wants to write to the Minister for Agriculture about these new wingless chickens they are producing in America is he obliged to put a stamp on the letter. I should like the Minister to say definitely whether he must or must not.

Mr. McGilligan

A letter about American Chickens?

Mr. Corry

A letter written by a citizen of this State to the Department of Agriculture or to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. McGilligan

About American chickens?

Mr. Corry

About anything in connection with State business. The people are paying the Ministers for giving certain expert advice. Is a citizen entitled to write to the Department of Agriculture for leaflet No. 1 in regard to the best manner of producing eggs, for leaflet No. so-and-so as to the cheapest way of fattening a pig as he always was in the past and to send those letters without any stamp? Will the Minister give me a definite answer on that, because I want to be clear on it?

So far as I could understand him, the Minister has mended his hand since last week. I am glad that the little lesson they learned here has induced them to mend their hand. The Minister told us last week that he was prepared to give certain concessions to Deputies, but that he was not prepared to give any concession to the general public. We are not looking for concessions for Deputies, but for the general public. That was the Minister's statement last week. Has he now mended his hand? Is the Minister going to allow this right to the ordinary citizen of the State—whether by usage or by precedent, he always did it—to continue?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has repeated that often enough for emphasis.

Mr. Corry

I was hoping that the Minister would be kind enough to give the information.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not by way of question and answer.

Mr. Corry

The Minister for Finance was bubbling over with answers a little while ago and I thought the courtesy might be extended a little further. Apparently not, because this is a thorny job. If the little lesson learned last week has brought about a situation in which the ordinary citizen of this State has been protected in that right, then we have done a good day's work. I, for one, was delighted to see the boys coming in to school this morning.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

To me the significance of the result of the two debates, last Thursday's debate and to-night's debate, taking then in conjunction, is that the Irish nation is still, thank God, a music-loving nation.

Mr. MacEntee

If the rights of some sections of the Irish nation have been vindicated, it is not due to Deputies like the Deputy who has just spoken. It is not due to Deputies who are members of the Labour Party, nor Deputies like Deputy Cowan. It is due to the fact that you have in this House an alert Opposition which repudiated the policy submitted to this House on behalf of the Coalition Government by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I have heard some of the colleagues of the present Minister trying to get out of their responsibilities by saying: "After all, it was not the Party which calls itself the Irish Labour Party which was responsibile for this, but it was the Minister who had been nominated by the National Labour Party." I have heard supporters of Clann na Poblachta say that it was the Fine Gael Party that was responsible for this. There must be some simulacrum of truth in that suggestion, because we do know that the screw has been very tightly turned by the Department of the Minister for Finance. In his effort to bolster up a dishonest Budget, he has instructed the Departments to screw every penny they possibly can, by administrative means, out of the Irish citizen.

At any rate, there is the doctrine of collective responsibility and for what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tried to do and to get the House to assent to last Thursday every member-and every supporter of the Coalition. whether he calls himself an Independent, like Deputy Sheehan, of Cork, or Deputy Cowan, of Dublin, or is formally and officially a follower of Deputy Larkin, like Deputy Connolly, or a supporter of the Minister for External Affairs, like Deputy Timoney or Deputy Fitzpatrick, is responsible. If we succeeded in staying his hand and if he has mended his hand here to-night, it is not due to them but due to the opposition of the largest Party in Dáil Éireann, the united opposition of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Leary

It is no use to you.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope, however, that the Minister has learned a lesson, that there are some things which even a Government cannot do, although I gather that the Minister is going to try to attempt one of them. He has told us, I understand, that letters which are sent to a Government Department purely on Government business will be accepted, will not, that is to say, be subject to any surcharge—though I do not see how a Department could pay a surcharge—but will be opened and will be dealt with. I would like if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when he is winding up this debate, would tell us how he proposes to give effect to that procedure. Has he developed a pair of X-ray eyes that will scrutinise an envelope which has been written by an old age pensioner down the country and has been tendered at the post office unstamped? Will he by reason of this extraordinary and miraculous vision of his pierce the opaque envelope and see what is written inside? Will he employ, perhaps, a special machine for the purpose or recruit individuals thus super-humanly gifted?

Mr. Dockrell

No, he can open the letter.

Mr. MacEntee

There, apparently, is the answer. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs says that he will refuse to accept any letters tendered at the post office which are unstamped unless they are on Government business; and when I asked him how that was going to be accomplished Deputy Dockrell comes to his rescue with the wise and sage suggestion: "He can open the letter". So the position now is that a staff of civil servants is to be recruited for opening letters and perusing them in order to satisfy themselves that they are letters which have been written by private citizens upon Government business. If they decide that these letters which have been delivered unstamped have not been written upon Government business, presumably the missives will be very carefully folded over, put in another envelope, this time with an economy label on it, and returned to the sender. Is that how Deputy Dockrell's suggestion with regard to these letters written on other than Government business and delivered at the post office should be dealt with? Of course any attempt on the part of the Minister to enforce the sort of principle——

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. When a Deputy speaks in the House I take it he is supposed to know the law and I would suggest——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Captain Cowan

He is outside the law.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not for me to judge.

Captain Cowan

There is the 1908 Act.

Mr. MacEntee

It is a pity that Deputy Cowan does not find more time to employ his legal knowledge in court. He would have less time to interrupt here.

Captain Cowan

I can resist that sort of gibe anyway.

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying when Deputy Cowan interrupted with what appeared to his intelligence to be a point of order, that we are now in agreement that it is quite impossible for the Minister to enforce the rule which he has laid down, that is, that he will permit only letters which are written on Government business and addressed to the Government Departments to be delivered in the ordinary way through the post if they are unstamped. It would be quite impossible to enforce that principle, and any Deputy of intelligence in this House— and the majority are intelligent people —will realise that, and so will the people down the country. What we have been listening to to-night therefore is what you might describe as a diplomatic surrender on the part of the Government to the Opposition. We are now fully justified in the lesson which we gave to the Government. If the people are going to enjoy henceforward the privilege they have enjoyed, not merely under the Irish Government, but even under the British Government, if an applicant for the old age pension may now write to the Minister for Social Welfare—and if he has time to attend to it—without having to put a 2½d. stamp on the envelope it is due to the Fianna Fáil opposition.

If a person is aggrieved by the action of any servant of the State, if he wishes to draw the attention of a member of the Government to the fact that he has been so aggrieved, and can do it henceforward as free of charge as he could have done previously, it is due to the Opposition which sits on these benches. Whatever else has emerged as a result of the Division which took place on Thursday night last this creditable thing emerges. We have taught the Government a lesson and they are not likely to forget for a long time and the people will not forget it either. The people will not forget this. I have sometimes said that there were Red elements in that Government and I think I can say that not only are there Red elements but there are also yellow elements, yellow elements who are afraid to face the country and the people in a general election.

Mr. Beegan

There is one matter which I have already mentioned on this Estimate to the Minister but which I wish to bring to his notice again, that is, the question of the rearrangement of postal districts. The matter was raised by Deputy McQuillan and to some extent by myself on the last occasion. While the rearrangement in the Ballinasloe area has conferred a benefit on a large number of people it has been decidedly a disadvantage to a number of other people. This rearrangement which was contemplated was something which should not have been done in the manner it was done because the districts were rearranged from Dublin and not from the local office. It was done on maps, old-time maps, and it could not be rearranged on maps by anybody. If somebody is not prepared to go all over the district they will not now know the proper lie of the district because since some of the maps were prepared—and as I said, I believe that this rearrangement has been based on old-time maps—a number of new roads have been made. They have not been taken into consideration at all.

The question of changing a person's address is an inconvenience, for some time, at any rate, and I think a certain length of time should be given in that respect. I know that districts have been enlarged, and have been doubled in a number of instances and district postmen have to undertake that extra work. Strange though it may seem— and it appears very strange to me that the Minister should be in any way a party to it—in cases where the districts have been doubled, the weekly wage has been reduced by amounts from 1/- and 5/-. I do not think the Minister should countenance that. Last year, an increase of 11/- was given to these men and a certain amount is now being taken away.

Then, we have the case of a number of men who were temporarily employed but whose temporary employment was almost whole-time. They are now disemployed as a result of this. When this action was contemplated, men with nine and ten years' service with the Post Office in a temporary capacity should have been trained as van drivers and kept in the service, instead of new men being brought into the service and these men being put on the unemployed list. I hope that this is merely a temporary arrangement which will be further considered and that a surveyor or some official of that type will be sent out with the postmen. Furthermore, the people in the sub-post offices now have to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and they get no extra remuneration for doing so. So far as some of the postmen whom I know are concerned, they will not be able to do the work which they are now being called on to do within the scheduled time. I know a postman who goes out at 7.30 in the morning and who is supposed to be back at 12.30. He would not be able to be back at 4 o'clock, if he were to do himself justice, and I would like the Minister to look into that matter with a view to bringing that arrangement to perfection, or as near as possible to perfection, and so avoid the hardships I mention which are imposed on the people concerned.

Mr. Lemass

I want to make one thing quite clear. When we moved last week to refer back the Estimate, it was for the purpose of enabling the Dáil to express general disapproval of the administration of the Department and particularly of the action of the Government in increasing the postal rates subsequent to last year's Budget. The submission of the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs this year was the first occasion upon which the Dáil had an opportunity of expressing approval or otherwise of the action of the Minister in increasing postal charges. I think I am right in saying that the method they adopted for the purpose of effecting that increase in charges was almost without precedent. Always in the past any substantial alteration of postal charges, an alteration capable of yielding an additional £250,000 to the Exchequer, was notified to the Dáil in the Budget and was discussed by the Dáil as part of the Government's financial proposals.

The House is aware that this Government, having made no forecast in the Budget of any intention to increase postal charges and having claimed that it was their policy to reduce taxation. subsequent to the adjournment of the Dáil for the Summer Recess last year, announced an alteration in postal charges by Order. The Dáil had no opportunity of discussing that action as it could have discussed any other proposal to increase Exchequer revenue and it had no opportunity certainly of expressing, by vote, its approval or disapproval of that action until the Estimate for the Department was submitted to the Dáil this year. The decision to ask the Dáil to refer back the Estimate for the Department for reconsideration was based upon that fact in particular, as well as the general feeling of dissatisfaction with the administration of the Department which was expressed here last year by many Deputies. It was only subsequent to the commencement of the debate——

Mr. McGilligan

It is a pity you did not mention that as an argument last week.

Mr. Lemass

I think it was mentioned.

Mr. McGilligan

It was not.

Mr. Sweetman

It was not. Deputy Little never mentioned a word of it.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister for Finance and Deputy Sweetman are wrong as usual.

Mr. Sweetman

They are not.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Cosgrave)

Deputy Little had not got his instructions then.

Mr. McGilligan

At any rate, it was not mentioned.

Mr. Lemass

May I proceed without these disorderly interruptions?

Mr. McGilligan

You may, but we are not taking your word as exact in this matter.

Mr. MacEntee

Is that in order? If I said that, I would be asked to withdraw it.

Mr. Lemass

Deputies opposite are extraordinarily sensitive to criticism. They will have to get over this tenderness of theirs. They are going to be criticised in this House, whether they like it or not——

Mr. S. Collins

So are you.

Mr. Lemass

——and disorderly interruption by the claque on the Front Bench will not stop me. It was only subsequent to the commencement of the debate that the Dáil learned of the intention of the Government to withdraw this privilege of free postage. I take it that that decision of the Government has been reversed and what the Minister meant to convey to-day is that it has been completely abandoned. There is certainly no sense in this suggestion that it would be possible to leave the privilege available to some people and to check up where the Minister believes there is abuse. If we are asked seriously to believe that a Minister getting an unstamped letter dealing with official business will pass it on to his Department to be dealt with, whereas if the letter contains a subscription to Party funds, he will send it back, it is taxing the credulity of Deputies and the public far too much. In fact, what the Minister meant was that he was retreating from the decision he announced on Thursday and this reference to an effort to discriminate between one type of letter or another is merely a smokescreen to disguise his retreat. We are glad he has retreated. We think he has made a wise decision, and we think he would be much straighter with the Dáil if he announced that he has retreated and that the position in future is going to be as it was in the past.

The motion to refer back the Estimate for reconsideration, which is again before the Dáil, and which will be voted on was not moved merely because of our objection to that particular proposal of the Minister. It is intended as a means by which the Dáil can express its disapproval of the actions of the Minister and the Government during the past year, with particular reference to the increase in postal charges which they effected by administrative Order during that period. May I say this to the Dáil before I conclude: if we can persuade a majority of the Deputies to support this motion to refer back the Estimate, we do not mean that the Government can hold a hasty meeting out there in the corridor, submit the Estimate for reconsideration and bring it in again? We mean that we disapprove of the administration of the Department and demand from the Government the withdrawal of the increase in postal charges which they effected last year.

Mr. Connolly

I think that Deputy Lemass is extremely wide of the mark. He gives as the reason for the reference back on Thursday the increase in the postal charges which was decided upon by the Minister subsequent to the summer Adjournment. He evidently has not taken the precaution of reading columns 361 and 362 of the Official Report, Volume 117. If he had, he would have seen that the ex-Minister, who hesitated as to the correct procedure, asked the question of the Chair whether he could move the Estimate back,

"so that we can discuss it",

and reserve his right to speak later. He was told by the Chair that he could not adopt that procedure,

"the reason being that in every case the question is widened by referring it back and the House is entitled to know for what reason and to debate the full matter"—"for what reason".

Deputy Little then gives his reason— merely to widen the debate so as to discuss policy rather than Departmental matters. He goes through the different Departmental matters. He talks about having seen the machine working from the outside and how different it looked from working on the inside. He asked for some more details in regard to certain figures. He goes into some of these figures in reference to various details—never mentioning the increase in postal charges.

Mr. McGilligan

"Never mentioning."

Mr. Connolly

After that, he comes to the question of policy. He relates the question of policy to the question of telephones and telegraphs which he refers to as the nerve centres of the whole system of commerce and of industry. He tells us how much these brought in last year—£35,000,000. He says that the Minister's policy deserves to be criticised because they have not gone out on a bold enough scheme. He goes on to talk about telephone development. He asks for various figures in reference to this and the development facilities all over the country. He talks about Departmental policy in reference to telephone exchanges. He urges the Minister to develop the telephone to the fullest possible extent, as nothing more impresses a stranger as the wide use of the telephone. He contrasts Ireland with other countries which, though smaller in size, have a larger population because they have developed their industries and that that should be our objective.

A Deputy

What is the point of all this?

Mr. Connolly

He then refers to Ministerial policy in reference to post office buildings. He goes into detail in regard to that matter.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to prevent Deputy Connolly from repeating Deputy Little's excellent speech. I want, however, to point out that I did not say that this matter or discussion was mentioned by Deputy Little. I said it was referred to in the debate——

Mr. McGilligan

You failed to say who mentioned it.

Mr. Lemass

Shut up.

Major de Valera

Deputy Allen mentioned it.

Mr. Lemass

——as a reason why the Vote should not be carried.

Mr. Sweetman

In other words, the spokesman did not give the real reason.

Mr. Little

I did not tie anybody's hands.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Cosgrave)

The instructions came later.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Connolly might continue with his speech.

Mr. Lemass

It is an excellent speech, and well worth repeating.

Mr. Connolly

I want to correct Deputy Lemass and to go even to the extent of quoting every word of the speech——

Mr. Lemass

Hear, hear.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be in order. To read out the whole speech of another Deputy is not in order.

Mr. McGilligan

We are looking for a quotation.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would not be in order to repeat the whole speech.

Mr. McGilligan

It was said that the reference back was for this purpose. The spokesman did not say a word about it.

Mr. Lemass

We have many spokesmen.

Major de Valera

A number of Deputies did.

An Ceann Comhairle

We want to hear Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Lemass

On Deputy Little.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Lemass made a statement that the reason given for referring this Estimate back was as a criticism of the Ministerial policy in regard to the postal charges——

Mr. Lemass

Amongst a number of other things.

Mr. Connolly

Amongst a number of other things. I have pointed out that the Chair specifically required the Deputy moving the reference back to state the reasons why the Vote should be referred back.

Mr. McGilligan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Connolly

He is the Deputy upon whom the responsibility rests of showing why the Dáil should refer the matter back.

Mr. Lemass

Another new Constitutional theory.

Mr. McGilligan

It is Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy MacEntee ascribes some intelligence even to Governmental Deputies.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps I was wrong.

Mr. Connolly

As usual. You may have been wrong. It is quite an elementary matter of debate, which anyone accustomed to debate knows, that the proposer of a motion, the one who takes the initiative, should certainly lay down the fundamental principles upon which that step is based. Deputy Little was lamentably lacking in knowledge of his subject. Deputy Lemass has to come in to-day to try to rectify the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the difference.

Mr. Connolly

He has to try to cloak the shortcomings of Deputy Little.

Mr. Little

I did not say——

Mr. Connolly

He had to act the big boy towards the little boy on the Front Bench. He has to correct his little brother and to protect him. He is able to do so. We must give Deputy Lemass every credit for having done it. If the matter went to the country, as Deputy Little presented it, we would not be fighting the case at all on a matter as pungent and as full of resource as Deputy Lemass has now given to the Opposition. He is the real inspiration of the Opposition—and Deputy Little might as well realise that now and admit that he was badly misled about this matter. He did not understand the Minister's speech. It would seem that he did not read it or study it although he was given a copy of it and should have done so. He left it to Deputy Briscoe to find out this paragraph that caused all the trouble—the paragraph about the 2½d. stamp and prepaid postage. He had not noticed that as a very good point to attack. Had he done so, and had he been as gifted as Deputy Lemass is, a case might have been made and well made for the Opposition. I think the Opposition is to be congratulated on the work they did. They are entitled to keep the Deputies of this House and the Ministers on their toes. Ministers undoubtedly have a right to have severe criticism from the Opposition. That is the duty of an Opposition. Fianna Fáil have carried out that duty well. This is a democratic country. We are cntitled to applaud sincerely what Deputy MacEntee has said—not in any gibing or sneering fashion. We sincerely applaud the fact that this country has been able to carry out a democratic act in the way in which it has been done—with, perhaps, too much furore.

The Opposition were not as smart or as clever as they appeared to think they were. When they did this they did it with commendable credit to themselves in regard to that one matter, but to think that they would thereby plunge the country into a general election was overshooting the mark. They picked the wrong time and they picked a matter which the public consider as frivolous—and they will not be permitted to repeat that experiment.

A Deputy

Was it undemocratic?

Mr. Connolly

No. I think they have given a lesson to any Party which may be in opposition in the future to be as much on their toes as Fianna Fáil were on their toes this session. It is wonderful for some of the older Deputies to see some of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party springing to life after such a long somnambulance. I would say that the Opposition cannot repeat that experiment. They cannot do it again. The only effect of their having done it on a wrong Estimate and on the wrong day—because they should have chosen Friday instead of Thursday—will be that some very optimistic Deputies perhaps who were not giving us time to get our Works Bill, our Land Reclamation Bill and the remainder of the Government's programme put into operation, and thus enable us to reap the benefits of these projects, will not be in a position to rush to the country as they fondly imagined. Instead of having an early general election, Fianna Fáil, by their tactics of having a snap division, have postponed the general election by probably four years.

Mr. Little

The Deputies opposite must be feeling awfully sore.

Mr. Briscoe

The statement has been made, I think by the Minister for Finance, that nobody in the course of the debate referred to the interim increase in postage that had been mentioned by Deputy Lemass. I would refer the Minister for Finance to the speech of Deputy Lynch, as given in column 391, to that of Deputy O'Rourke, column 404, and that of Deputy Allen, column 420. Each of these Deputies definitely referred to the increased postage and pointed out the objections in the manner in which Deputy Lemass has referred to it.

Coming back to the main issue of the reintroduction to-day of this Estimate, I would like the House to be quite clear on this. If Deputies read the statement of the Minister in introducing the Estimate, they will see that it was quite clear that it was the intention to do otherwise than what is said here to-day. I think it should be read. Deputy Connolly has read a lot of stuff which is quite immaterial to what is under discussion here.

Mr. Davin

He did not read it; he summarised it.

Mr. Briscoe

What I want to make clear to the House is what the Minister said.

Mr. Donnellan

There is probably intelligence in that.

Mr. MacEntee

Apparently, the Parliamentary Secretary is under some doubt.

Mr. Donnellan

None whatever.

Mr. Briscoe

In column 356, the Minister said:—

"It has, accordingly, been decided that letters addressed to Government Departments will have to be fully prepaid by the senders in future, unless, of course, an official paid envelope supplied by a Government Department for the purpose is used."

Nobody can take out of that any other meaning than that in future, as distinct from the past——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Read it in its context.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not read the whole speech.

Mr. Briscoe

Nobody can take any other meaning than that there is going to be a departure——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Except on State business. Read it out.

Mr. Briscoe

With a franked envelope. I will read it again. Perhaps Deputy O'Higgins——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order! The Deputy need not read to dictation.

Mr. Briscoe

To any member of the House with commonsense, it can only have one meaning.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That does not apply to you.

Mr. Briscoe

That does not apply to Deputy O'Higgins, who has a special sense of understanding.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Briscoe

It is so difficult to deal with the two Deputies O'Higgins. On that particular point the Minister might be a little bit more frank with the House than he has been to-day. It was his intention to do a certain thing. Everyone who spoke on it was left in the state of mind that what he was saying was correct. No one interjected to say that that was not the intention. The Minister did not say it was not the intention. Towards the end of the debate, when the Minister was replying, he actually said he was prepared to compromise with the Deputies —and certain Deputies stated they did not want a compromise, as far as their postage was concerned; that they were speaking on behalf of the public; and the Minister would not withdraw the new suggestion, as far as the ordinary public was concerned.

Now, this evening the Minister tries to state that it was intended only to deal with a certain type of letter, with somebody who writes to him saying he does not like a record which is played over Radio Éireann or someone who wants another record played. I am glad to see that there is a change. When the Minister for Finance came in here on Friday morning, and indicated his motion to reintroduce the Estimate, he actually used the words: "Word for word as it was introduced in the first instance". There was going to be no change whatsoever.

Mr. McGilligan

There is not.

Mr. Briscoe

We must be very stupid and the Dáil must be very stupid. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tells us to-day that what we understood last Thursday was going to happen is now not going to happen. We are now told that people who want leaflets from the Department of Agriculture can send an unfranked letter or postcard.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Does the Deputy object to that?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Then what is all the trouble about?

Mr. Lemass

We are congratulating the Minister on his conversion.

Mr. Corry

Change your tune over there.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

You voted against at.

An Ceann Comhairle

There will be several absentees from the vote, I am afraid, if Deputies cannot conduct themselves.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to say that I welcome this new change and I am glad that we are not going to take away the previous rights the people had.

Mr. MacEntee

Death-bed conversion.

Mr. Briscoe

It is rather extraordinary. I myself listened to a number of Deputies from the Government Benches indicating that they did not approve of it. Deputy Cowan did not approve of it last Thursday. Deputy Kyne actually said that if it were pressed to a vote, he was so much opposed to it he would vote against it.

Mr. Kyne

The Deputy will find that is not correct. What I said was that I would find it very hard to vote for it.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Kyne at least, if I am not overstating the case, did not agree with the imposition of this new form of taxation on the ordinary public and stated he would find it very hard not to vote against it.

Captain Cowan

It makes no change one way or the other.

Mr. Briscoe

It makes this difference. There is no sense in trying to fool oneself into believing that we are now having the exact same approach to this Estimate as we had on Thursday. It was the intention of the Minister last Thursday to do something which he now says is not going to happen.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not so.

Mr. Briscoe

As far as we are concerned on these benches——

Mr. McGilligan

That is not the case.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister for Finance very often quotes from debates and he could not read in column 356 any other meaning than what the whole Dáil took out of it last Thursday-speaker after speaker, with no interjection from the Minister. As a matter of fact, I heard certain members of the Government Benches actually making comments that they were surprised that Deputy Little had not spotted this particular thing. Here is what the Minister said:—

"It has accordingly"

that is very official language; it is a considered thing, and language that was used in a written, prepared statement——

"been decided that letters addressed to Government Departments will have to be fully prepaid by the senders in future, unless, of course, an official paid envelope supplied by a Government Department for the purpose is used."

If the Minister for Finance can make that mean what he says to-day-the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs says he cannot—I will be a very surprised person.

Mr. McGilligan

If I may take the Deputy's point, Deputy Everett last week, when moving this Estimate, spoke of letters and abuses with regard to non-prepayment of letter postage. He said——

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, the Minister referred to Deputy Everett. To whom was he referring?

Mr. McGilligan

To the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I thank Deputy MacEntee for that correction. The statement was made that there was an abuse growing up. It had been said it was the practice for a long time to have letters sent and admitted free of postage if they were on the business of the State. That was the keynote of the remark the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs made. The phrase to which Deputy Briscoe referred comes immediately after that. It was in the context of the abuses with regard to letters. The whole position was as to whether letters were sent on the business of the State or not. There is an abuse and the abuse is going to be stopped. It cannot be stopped in this manner, on which so much attempted ridicule has been poured, of trying to decide by looking at the cover alone of a letter whether it is on the business of the State or not. That is not the way in which to stop it. It is hoped that people will realise that they have been abusing a privilege and that they will not write these letters.

There is another way of dealing with it. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gave the example of letters sent to his Department containing recommendations for people. These clearly were not on State business. If people get it into their heads that letters recommending candidates for posts will not be attended to unless they are stamped in the ordinary way, they may come to decide that it would be worth while putting a stamp on them. The main object in this is not to gain money. Certain comments were made here that certain phrases were used and not countered by the Minister. There was one remark that came from Deputy Briscoe that could have been countered at once. The Deputy asked how much money was in this. There is not one penny in it.

Mr. Briscoe

Will the Minister agree that my state of mind was such at the time that it was a charge following up the others?

Mr. McGilligan

Prepaid postage is one thing that I can deal with, but the Deputy's state of mind is another, and with regard to that I would rather deal with a 2½d. stamp. It is much easier to do so. Deputy Childers seemed to look on this as an easy way of achieving a fair amount of revenue because he asked that it be spent in a different way. There is no money in this.

Mr. Briscoe

Why did not the Minister say so?

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know. He possibly has not the habit of interrupting that other people have.

Mr. Briscoe

Look through the debates and see.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think the Minister did interrupt—certainly not in the way that I think that he should have—in the debate. There is not one penny of money in this from the finance angle. The Estimate for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not increased by one penny piece on account of this. It is not expected that there will be any money coming from it, but it is hoped that there will be a lessening of this type of letter, of people asking for the autographs of folk whose songs are played over Radio Éireann, of people wanting to send in recommendations for candidates, and, particularly, of firms sending in contracts for stores. In the case of the latter, we hope that they will stamp their letters. We hope that other people simply will not write letters in the way they have been doing, and in that way that there will be some easing, some little saving from the staff point of view. But there is not a penny of money in this for what has been called the hard-pressed Minister for Finance, even with a dishonest Budget.

Mr. Briscoe

Did the Minister for Finance read the statement of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. McGilligan

I did.

Mr. Briscoe

Did you not see that the Minister made reference to the services rendered by his Department for other Departments, and that the delivery of these letters involved so much?

Mr. McGilligan

And so it does, but there is no intention of getting money out of it. We want to put a stop on this free service. We think it ought not to be free. Supposing I was to face Deputies next year and say that I wanted some small tax that would bring in £25,000 and that I required it because of the expense the Post Office was involved in, expense that it should not be involved in through having to deliver the letters of business people and of other senders on matters that had nothing to do with State business, would not every Deputy be up in arms against me for taxing the people for providing free postage where it was not required? There are abuses and definite abuses. The only way, I think, in which these abuses can be got at is by having it made known through the Press that the abuses have been recognised, and that an appeal is being made to people not to send in this type of letter unless they think it worth while to put a stamp on it. But, may I say again, there is no hope of extra money accruing to the State revenues by what was said here on Friday. If it comes in, all the better, but the hope is that this type of Post Office service will not be demanded. I hope it will be made clear to people that, if they want to write letters recommending candidates or looking for contracts, they will realise that their letters will not get the same attention unless they obey the law, and do not make the abuse still heavier than what it has been.

I do not know if I am entitled to refer to the matter of the Post Office Savings Bank. It has been said that this fund has been raided twice. At a time when this money was lying in hand, the Party opposite had to reduce the interest rate. I restored the interest rate on the money lying there. These are what are called "dormant balances". I hold that I am perfectly entitled to bring that money to the relief of the taxpayers. I have no excuse to offer for that.

On this other matter which has been made a bone of contention in the debate, the question of Post Office charges achieved by Order last year, that is the proper way in which these charges should be made. There can be no gainsaying that.

Mr. Lemass

It should have been announced in the Budget.

Mr. McGilligan

If it was known at the Budget time.

Mr. Lemass

It should have been known.

Mr. McGilligan

It was not known. The question was raised at a critical point late in May—that the application of the 11/- increase made to industrial workers outside should apply to Post Office workers. It was decided to pay that sum of money. It was also decided, so to speak, to make the punishment fit the crime—that the proper way to look for the money required to pay the Post Office workers the wage increase was by increasing the Post Office charges. It has been generally accepted here that the Post Office service should be made as near as possible a self-supporting concern. If the wages of the Post Office employees are increased, is it not a proper thing to have the increase put on the service which these employees render?

Mr. Lemass

Why was not that said then?

Mr. McGilligan

I delivered the Budget speech on the 4th May. These increases were not paid until the end of May. When I made my speech on the 4th May, if I had known that these charges would come in course of payment during the year, and that my way of finding the money was this increase, I certainly would have made reference to it.

Mr. Lemass

Why was not that explanation given when the charges were announced? These charges came into operation without any explanation.

Mr. McGilligan

That was done, so far as I can remember, in the month of June. It actually took place when I was in London. I was not here to make any statement. A simple question would have elicited the information. It was common knowledge.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want any hysteria.

Mr. MacEntee

Is it not usual that when a Deputy rises to put a point of order, the Deputy speaking sits down?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is.

Mr. MacEntee

I want to ask if it is not a fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs could not have increased these charges without the permission of the Minister for Finance?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order, which the Deputy ought to know.

Mr. Morrissey

It is as near to it as ever he has got.

Mr. McGilligan

Is the point that an explanation should be given to the House as to why every increased charge is being made? I do not know if the Opposition has ever asked for an explanation. Why did they not ask that question? We are told about an alert Opposition. Why did they not ask the question?

Mr. Little

I raised the question.

Mr. McGilligan

Possibly you did, and if you raised it you surely got an answer. I am told that an answer was given, but I do not think that I gave it. That is the explanation. In any event, I am not saying anything new to the House.

Mr. Lemass

It is the first time it has ever been mentioned here.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not believe it is. If Deputies are not able to put two and two together—that increased wages to Post Office employees will mean increased Post Office charges—I do not know why I should be expected to come into the House to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" for them. However, that is the explanation. It has been said that this debate—the reference back of this last Thursday— was due to this matter of increased charges. Any reference there was to the increased charges—and it was very, very small—did not arise in relation to that matter itself but in relation to what was called this new charge of the increased postage because of what was called the deprivation of the old-time privilege with regard to free letters, and that was all based on the mistake that there was any money in this. There is no money in this. There never was. If something little accrues to the State, very good, it may lead to some remission in some other way next year, but there is no expectation that there will be any money. There is an expectation that this abuse will not go on.

Major de Valera

The Minister for Finance's reiteration that there is no money in this is rather surprising, having regard to the fact that the Minister for Finance has himself come down here and has, apparently, taken the conduct of this debate out of the hands of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. If the Minister for Finance wants us to believe now that this is purely a matter of convenience within the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, surely the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is competent to talk about administration within his own Department. If, up to this moment, rightly or wrongly, no matter how the facts may be, Deputies have assumed that there is a substantial matter of finance involved, at least colour has been lent to that by the fact that not only here to-day does the Minister for Finance sit in the leading seat in this House, apparently directing this whole debate for the Government, not only does he come in and take charge when it has become a matter of confidence last week, but he has virtually held his fire to speak until almost all Deputies in this House had spoken and then, apparently, replies authoritatively.

Captain Cowan

Is not he entitled?

Major de Valera.

He is. I am not in the least in any way criticising the Minister for Finance's right to talk, but the Minister for Finance is a member of the dominant Party in the Coalition and, apparently, at certain times every other Party must dance to the tune of that dominant Party. However, to come now more specifically to this question involved, there can be no doubt in the mind of anybody impartially reading the report of the debate on the previous occasion, starting at column 356, where the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said —the Chair will pardon me if I quote the complete paragraph:—

"A matter which has been causing considerable concern is the extent to which correspondence from the public for Government Departments is being posted without payment of postage. It has been the practice of the Post Office to accept and deliver all such correspondence, but this arrangement was originally intended to apply only to correspondence which was on the business of the State. It has, of course, been impossible for the Post Office to determine what correspondence posted by the public in private envelopes is on the business of the State, but from a recent examination of correspondence for my own Department, it is clear that many letters which should have been prepaid were posted without postage. It has, accordingly, been decided that letters addressed to Government Departments will have to be fully prepaid by the senders in future, unless, of course, an official paid envelope supplied by a Government Department for the purpose is used."

As pointed out by Deputy Briscoe, I think, in connection with this, here is a reasoned, formal statement made by a Minister and I should imagine in conformity with his brief. It is a statement that we are entitled and that the public are entitled to take as a reasoned statement from a Department and we are entitled to assume that a Department and a Minister is open and above-board with the public and that nothing is hidden away in words: in other words, that lawyers' subtleties are not employed and that the words mean what they appear to mean to the ordinary man. I think the public and we are entitled to that from a Department and from a Minister.

Taking these words in that sense, particularly having regard to the statement that it is impossible for the Post Office to determine what correspondence posted by the public in private envelopes is on the business of the State, and then the definite statement that letters addressed to Government Departments will have to be fully prepaid by the senders in future, unless of course, an official paid envelope supplied by a Government Department for the purpose is used, it was fair to assume that the Minister was announcing to this House that in future all correspondence addressed to a Government Department would have to bear a stamp.

Mr. Timoney

Unless——

Major de Valera

Unless, of course, an official paid envelope is used and the Deputy knows as well as I do that a prepaid envelope carries a stamp. In any event, there is the statement of the Department and on that hypothesis the debate proceeded. I am stating facts. In regard to that, practically every Deputy from, I think, Deputy Briscoe who was the second speaker, onwards, on this side of the House, adverted to it. Certainly, the Deputies named at the columns mentioned by Deputy Briscoe adverted to it and also to the previous imposition of tax by increasing the postage in a previous year. Not only did Deputies on this side advert to it but Deputies such as Deputy Kyne—and he himself has intervened in this debate to show the accuracy of what he has said— joined in the course of opposition against the Minister in this matter and at the conclusion of that debate we find the Minister taking the stand that he must insist on it but that he is prepared to meet Deputies and he gives, particularly at column 448, his reasons. He distinguishes consistently through that between what he calls State business and the other. I will hand that to the Minister for Finance here to-day if he wants it. Yes, I admit the Minister made a distinction between what he called State business and the other but he made no other offer that I can find except the offer to meet Deputies and he used this phrase, particularly, at column 451, that he cannot give way to the public:—

"I will consider and help Deputies. I know their trouble and their difficulties. I know what they have to contend with but then I cannot give way to the public. If it is to meet Deputies I am prepared to meet them and discuss the matter and give them every facility."

Then he goes on. In the next column he says:—

"I insist that the public must pay when they are writing on private matters to Government Departments."

Now, the issue, therefore, was this that Deputies here were not satisfied——

Mr. McGilligan

You are not finished with the quotations, are you?

Major de Valera

If the Minister wants me to read the whole lot—it is an old trick—with the permission of the Chair, I will do it.

Mr. McGilligan

What about going to column 453?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Major de Valera

The Minister can go to it when he is speaking, if he wishes.

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot speak again.

Major de Valera

The point in this is that the Minister, having made that categorical statement, seeks to differentiate between private and public business. It is very difficult to see how as a matter of practical politics one could do it. For instance—I am talking to this here now and I understand the Minister to have conceded this point—a person writing about an old age pension, a farmer writing about a claim he had from a Department in cases where, say, a manufacturing licence was involved, this, according to the way you looked at it, could be and most probably would be put in a category of private matters. Were these to be matters which would require to have stamped envelopes? It was on the question as to whether the public were entitled—and I think all Deputies are agreed that on such matters the public were entitled—to have free access to Departments that the issue was raised. Now, I take it from the Minister—and I would ask the Minister now to make it very clear —that people writing on old age pensions, farmers writing in connection with schemes, anybody writing in connection with private matters that require Government intervention, that are not merely requests for autographs which we heard so much about will be free.

All matters which are business between the State and the individual can be looked on, according as you look at the parties, as private or public. If the State came into it or any right from the State, one person may call them private matters because they are personal to the individual, and another may call them public because public funds and public administration are involved. In those categories, anyway, I take it the Minister is now telling us—and I ask him to clear the air—that on such communications there will be free access to Government Departments as there has been heretofore. I will give him his point about the autographs.

There is one point with regard to radio records. It is all right to say that the people are not to write in freely to the Departments about radio records, but it would be well to remember that the average owner of a radio set is paying 12/6 for his licence and is entitled to service, and this mechanism by which requests are got is a very convenient way for the Department to keep in touch with the public and give the public what they want. I am prepared to argue on such matters in the interests of the licence holders from the point of view of giving the citizens as nearly as possible what they want. I think there is a case for asking for the old situation to continue.

Now, moving from that, there is the financial aspect of all this. If a Minister says something in the House, categorically, I shall be very slow not to accept what he has said. But I ask this objectively without reference to personalities. How many letters are involved? The Minister has the way of knowing the figures. A certain number of letters is reaching the Departments every day unfranked or unstamped, but they are sufficient in number, whether from a money or an administrative point of view, to warrant the Minister making this specific provision and to warrant the Minister for Finance coming in and taking control of all this debate and the affairs relating thereto. I am prepared to believe the number involved is substantial. What is the probable number if you cut off the free franking?

It is undoubtedly true that if the Minister were to carry through what we and some Deputies on the far side of the House only last week assumed to be his intention there would be a certain decline in the present numbers, but in any event, even working out the casualties due to the fact that a 2½d. stamp would have to be procured for every letter going to the Department, a certain number of letters would still reach the Government Department each day and each letter would account for 2½d. In the absence of the figures I am unable to complete the sum, but the Minister should be able to tell us the number involved, what the estimated decrease in the number to be received is, and we can multiply the proper figure by 2½d. and get the answer in pence.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

You can do that next year.

Major de Valera

It may then be too late. Last year the postage in other categories was increased and we did not get an opportunity of discussing it until last week. There is no harm in asking for it now.

Mr. McGilligan

But you did get an opportunity of discussing it?

Major de Valera

The point is this. I do not know whether it is substantial or trivial, but there is definitely some financial aspect. The working out of that sum may show it is trivial and I make no point about that; but there is definitely a question there in relation to finance and revenue which we are entitled to ask. Quite apart from the inconvenience to the farmer, there is this point, that whatever additional revenue, be it little or large, is collected from that source, it means revenue, and one thing I would object to in principle, even if the additional revenue were only ld., is that in a Coalition Government the Minister for Finance, a representative of the major Party, can give reliefs with the appearance that the reliefs are coming from the major Party and hide away in the Estimates of Ministers from other elements of the Coalition concealed taxation and let them take the rap.

An attempt is being made to say there has been no change. If there has been no change in what has been presented by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to-day, it is an awful pity the matter was not cleared in the previous debate and a lot of fuss would have been saved. I remember an occasion recently when the Minister for Defence in a debate here, when some of us took a figure by mistake, quietly and quickly intervened and put the debate on the right road and all misapprehensions were cleared up. Why does it have to go the length of having the Government defeated on the Vote, the reintroduction of the Vote, and an explanation offered here to-day that was not given on what was meant to take the place of a vote of confidence without the embarrassment of a full discussion of the type that would follow a vote of confidence? Why does the Minister for Finance get up now and say there is no change?

I ask the Minister to make it clear that letters of a non-important nature, such as looking for his autograph, will require a stamp and that letters from old age pensioners, farmers and anybody else dealing with what may be personal business but has relation to the State, will be carried free as heretofore?

Finally, I would like very much to know, in spite of the Minister for Finance and his quick criticisms of Deputies on this side of the House, the exact machinery by which differentiation between the two types of correspondence will be effected.

Mr. Coburn

I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the very fine work he has done during the past year and the efficient manner in which he has carried it out. There is no doubt that the Minister and his Department, with the means at their disposal, have done much that has commanded the praise and respect of the people. It is true the Minister will, in the course of the next year, extend the activities of the Post Office and I hope he will be in a position to do so, particularly the telephone service.

The position of the Post Office is rather peculiar. When I look back some 20 or 25 years, I realise that at that time the Post Office was losing practically £500,000 a year. So far as my memory goes, I think, prior to the signing of the Treaty, the Post Office in the United Kingdom and Ireland was losing £1,000,000 each year. That is a thing that Deputies opposite ought to realise, because their own Government had to realise it. To-day the Post Office is almost self-sufficient and, due to the work of the various Ministers, we have here services equal to the postal services in any country of its size in the world.

Reference was made to some minor matters in relation to what the Minister has done. I was particularly amused by the reference made by Deputy McGrath to the importation by the Minister of dressed telegraph poles ready for erection. He asked the Minister to ensure that future imports should be brought in in the raw state. I understand that Deputy McGrath is a tradesman. He would be just as logical and consistent if he asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, instead of bringing in timber prepared and ready for use in building construction and in the erection of houses which are so vitally essential at the moment, he would bring in round timber in the rough. Would Deputy McGrath like to get a bar of iron with humps on every three or four inches of it instead of getting the prepared iron that is imported at the moment? These are the kind of criticisms with which the Minister has to contend. I appeal to the Deputies opposite to exercise a little commonsense in matters of this kind.

An attempt was made to create the impression here this evening that the people in the country were shrieking in indignation because they would be expected in the future to put a 2½d. stamp on every letter sent to a Government Department. I have travelled the length and breadth of my county during the past few days. I heard not a single word of criticism of the action of the Minister in that regard. Like the people in every other county, the people in my county are at the moment busily engaged on the one thing; they are looking upwards to the clouds, praying and hoping for the long-delayed rainfall that will bring relief to everybody concerned. They are not paying any particular attention to the speeches delivered here this evening.

We look upon the world at the moment and we see the dangers that exist therein and we see the problems with which the statesmen of the world are confronted. Thanks to the present Government and to the previous Government, too, we occupy a happy position here. Why all this hullabaloo ever a simple matter as to whether a person should or should not put a 2½d. stamp on a letter? One wonders whether we really are in earnest. One wonders whether all this criticism is not due to the fact that the Opposition Deputies are not in a position to plunge this country into the wholly unnecessary expense of a general election.

Mr. McGrath

I did not think we would go back as far as telegraph poles this evening. I would like to point out to Deputy Coburn that a deputation of workers employed in dressing these poles waited on me and asked me to do something about the importation of ready dressed poles. The work of dressing the poles gave employment to about 40 men. If Deputy Coburn prefers to have the poles dressed in the country of origin and to let the men employed on that work here go on the dole, that is a matter for himself. I do not subscribe to such a system. I would prefer to give our men all the employment we can.

Mr. Coburn

The exporting country can, if they wish, insist on their coming in dressed.

Mr. Corry

They have to go by rail down to Bantry.

Mr. McGrath

The Electricity Supply Board are getting them in in the raw state and their poles are dressed and creosoted in Cork. I would have thought that Deputy Coburn would know more about this than even I do.

Mr. Coburn

I know the cost anyway.

Mr. McGrath

You should know the cost. First of all, you said the country of origin insisted on sending them in dressed. Now you say it is the cost. I think it would be just as cheap to employ men dressing the poles as it is to have them drawing the dole. I think Deputy Coburn would have been well advised to leave the poles out of it and not think this was a stupid, silly remark of Deputy McGrath. Deputy McGrath speaks from experience. He has met the men who became idle as a result of bringing in these dressed poles. Might I remind Deputy Coburn that iron was brought in with lumps on it and rolled down in Haulbowline? I would prefer to see it coming in in that state and giving ultimate employment to our own people rather than give employment to people in some other country. It is no wonder we have unemployment when we have Deputies with the mentality of Deputy Coburn preaching what he preached here this evening.

Mr. Coburn

I am doing it for 25 years.

Mr. McGrath

In his reply last week the Minister said that it would not cost people anything to write to Departments because, when they did write, they would get back a franked envelope. Does that mean the initial letter would have to be stamped, or will it go free and that then they will receive a franked envelope? That means that people will be put to the trouble of writing two letters. First of all, I want to know will the initial letter be delivered free?

With regard to another point, when Ministers are writing to their constituents on constituency business will their letters go out free from their offices? Will the ordinary Deputy have to pay? I would like the Minister to straighten that matter out.

Mr. Davin

That has always happened. It happened when you were in Government.

Mr. McGrath

I know it did, but I want to know now is the position going to change, or will letters from Ministers to their constituents on constituency business go free?

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Tá cúpla ceist agam le cur ar an Aire Airgeadais. I understand that there are 60,000 letters received yearly in the Department of Lands. These letters come from rural constituencies and deal with time to pay annuities, vesting of the land, claims for farms, land provision and housing under the Land Commission. Are all these people now to pay postage? Is it the intention not to reply to these requests for farms, for time to pay annuities, queries about the vesting of farms? Are none of these 60,000 letters addressed annually to the Land Commission to be replied to? Every Deputy on the Government Benches from a rural constituency knows that the biggest thing they have to deal with is the question of farms and lands. It is the biggest part of their correspondence. Are we to understand from the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that requests for deferment of payment, for vesting of farms, for grants for houses and various other things that concern the 400,000 farmers in this country, the biggest section of the community, will not be dealt with unless the letters are stamped?

Mr. McGilligan

You do not ask me the answer to that.

Mr. Everett

In the reference back I do not know what case to meet. Deputy Lemass points out to-night that the reason why it was referred back was owing to no notice and no opportunity being given for a debate on the increased postage of last year. Deputy Vivion de Valera gets himself worked up into great excitement and he gives a quotation of the statement I made last week, but he does not complete it. If he had completed the sentence you would have heard, and would have read, where I said: "Where it is the business of the State there will be no change." That was the position. However, the Opposition, through their clever tactics, worked out their propaganda that we meant to tack it on to the old-age pensioners, but at the same time they forgot the vote against the increase of old-age pensions a year ago. You are accusing me of trying to make the aged and the infirm people pay something extra for making an application for their pension. I said there were no changes. It was only in your mind that we were going to ask the people to pay. I said deliberately the only ones we were asking were the wealthy people—not the poorer section —who are asking for concessions not in the interests of the State.

Mr. McGrath

Did you not say that they should write up for franked envelopes?

Mr. Everett

We send to farmers and others a franked envelope or a slip of paper just the same as you get in your income-tax. The whole argument here to-night by Deputy Lemass was that there was no opportunity given last year to debate the increase in the postage. Let us read my statement last year in the debate. Volume 112, column 813 of the Official Reports on the 20th July, 1948:—

"Certain schemes were put up to the Minister for Finance and the Government. It was not considered necessary at the time the Budget was being framed to put on these extra charges. Immediately after the Budget statement I was faced with demands for increased wages from the staff. I was faced with increased demands from Córas Iompair Éireann in order to give the country people a mail service. These services cost a very considerable sum. Now the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is a commercial undertaking and has to bring in revenue. I have been informed that the rates for papers have not been revised for a long time back. Faced with that problem we had no other alternative except to increase our rates in order to meet the exceptional demands. Had I not secured those increases I am perfectly certain that Deputy Little would have been the first to condemn the Department for not taking appropriate action."

That was on the Estimate last year when the matter of these charges was debated by the Opposition. To-night I am faced with Deputy Lemass, who says the reason why the Estimate was referred back was because he wanted to get an opportunity to protest against the charges being put on without giving the Dáil an opportunity to discuss them at the present time.

With regard to the reason why the increase was put on, I was faced with a cost of £336,000 for increased wages and other things I mentioned. That was the annual wages bill. The Department had no option but to look for additional revenue, as we must maintain a self-supporting Department. Now, the Opposition has found that, with all their misrepresentation in connection with the matter, there is no change other than that the people who are using the letters, even to Deputies, putting Éire on the envelopes, asking for subscriptions for the erection of a hall, are not to go free. Will the Deputy not be pleased that the letter probably will not be delivered? How would he like to be charged 5d.? Surely he cannot contend that wealthy people looking for contracts from the various Government Departments should not pay postage. Are these the people Deputy Corry wants to get free postage for? I am not going to ask the poorer section of the people to bear the costs when these wealthy combines take the advantage of writing to Government Departments asking for contracts. I am sure no Deputy present will agree to that arrangement; it has been abused. However, as far as Deputies are concerned, I am giving a freer concession than they ever had before. I am giving the public a concession, because under the Act they are not entitled to it. Deputy Corry cannot get away with making out that we are going to charge the farmer. The farmer would not object to getting £100 grant. If he sends up his application he will get a prepaid envelope back, the same as with regard to income-tax. He will not have to pay on his taxes. If he is writing to Deputy Corry for a subscription, either Deputy Corry will pay on it or he will pay on it.

We only hear, as I said, a whole misrepresentation in connection with this matter. I said I do not know what case to meet. Deputy Lemass puts forth one argument giving his reasons. I pointed out to him that he has overlooked the fact that that was discussed last year. Now you have shifted your tactics on to another point; you may take it from the old age pensioners and we will never forgive you. There is no use trying to use your propaganda for them to-night. The road worker will not forgive. Your 2d. increase to-day was no use to the road worker when he was starving. I have tried to do my best for all sections of the community. The road workers have got 10/- and 12/- increase where you refused to give them only 2d. to-day. You used your Standstill Order against any man for getting an increase. When you are in a hypocritical mood as you have been for the last two days it is only politics you are playing.

Mr. McGrath

You are a different man from what you were last Thursday.

Mr. Everett

I am no different from what I have been for the last 25 years. I do not change. I advocate, whether in the Government or out of it, the protection of the people who have fought and suffered more than the Deputy.

Mr. McGrath

Maybe you think so.

Mr. Everett

I fought, when it was not popular to do so, for those people whose rights I am protecting at the present time.

Mr. McGrath

You must have kept it all to yourself.

Mr. Everett

I did not keep it to myself. I made you, among others, realise the fact——

Captain Cowan

Is Deputy McGrath entitled to act the Brigham Young here?

Mr. Everett

We have exposed—I have it on record and you cannot use it for propaganda—the misrepresentations which some of the Deputies opposite have been making all over the country. As I have said, the old age pensioners will never give you a chance again, neither will the road worker, nor the widows and orphans. They are never going to put Deputy Corry in a position in which he can vote against them again. He is one of the astutest politicians in this House. I have heard him here, when we occupied the Opposition Benches, getting up and criticising the Government then in office, but when into the matter came to a vote he went into the division lobby to support that Government and to vote against those whom he pretended to support.

Mr. Corry

You have changed since last Thursday night.

Mr. Everett

I have not changed but you have tried to misrepresent me in that way. I may not have made the matter as clear as I have made it to-night but there was never any intention to charge a fee on letters which were on State business. I submit I made it clear that no charge was intended for letters on State business.

Mr. Corry

What about the lads who refused to vote?

Mr. Everett

There was no refusal to vote. Deputies, of course, have a right to get up and criticise, no matter on what side of the House they may sit. That is the difference between Parties on that side of the House and on this side. Deputies on this side have a right to criticise, and that is what will make Ministers do what is right. That is what makes this Government the servants of the people and not their bosses. There have been too many instances in the past where the Government forgot the people, where Ministers did not associate with the plain people and where they would not allow Deputies to express the views of their constituents. We have now on this side of the House Deputies holding various opinions who are free to express their opinions publicly without fear of being carpeted or expelled from the Party for doing so. They are free to criticise Ministers any time they wish to do so. That is true democracy and I welcome it. I have always welcomed constructive criticism and have never objected to it. Because of such constructive criticism, Ministers are always on the alert and try to meet the wishes of the people. It is in that spirit that I submit my Estimate for the judgment of the House.

Mr. de Valera

May I ask the Minister not to leave the position as it is at present? If I am a member of the public, I do not know whether I am obliged or not to stamp a letter addressed to a Government Department. How am I to judge that?

Mr. Everett

There is no charge if it is on Government business.

Mr. de Valera

I am simply looking for information so that the Minister may make this matter clear. Suppose I want a pamphlet from the Department of Agriculture——

Mr. Everett

That is Government business.

Mr. de Valera

Are you going to write out a list of categories to show what is and what is not Government business?

Mr. Everett

I tried to explain what I had in mind. Take, for example, a letter looking for a contract. That is not Government business.

Mr. de Valera

That might mean 100 letters in the year, at most.

Mr. Everett

Take cases such as the Deputy knows, persons looking for autographs. There are some thousands of people who have nothing else to do.

Mr. de Valera

I have got many a letter of that kind, but I have never got one without a stamp. They may not enclose a stamped envelope for a reply.

Mr. Everett

There are thousands of people looking for recommendations of one kind or another. That would not be Government business.

Mr. de Valera

I am putting myself in the position of an ordinary member of the public and perhaps the Minister would tell us what the categories are.

Mr. Everett

I can assure the Deputy there is no change. So far as we are concerned, there has been no change in the practice.

Mr. de Valera

If I were a member of the public, listening to the various speeches that have been made in this debate, I would frank every letter for which I wanted consideration, because I would feel that there was an excuse for not attending to the letter if I did not frank it. I think the Minister should not leave the matter in its present position. He will either have to give a list of categories showing the letters that may or may not be franked or leave the position in such a way that nobody can know whether he is to frank a letter or not. Nobody wants to spend 2½d. if he can avoid doing so, but it is quite obvious that if you want to have a letter attended to you will have to spend that 2½d.

Mr. Everett

Not if it is on the business of the State.

Mr. Beegan

I want to ask the Minister a question.

Mr. S. Collins

The Deputy has spoken already.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This debate cannot go on by way of question and answer.

Mr. Beegan

I want to ask the Minister if he intends to go into the matter that I put before him, namely, whether postmen whose wages have been reduced and whose areas have been enlarged, are going to have their position worsened in that way?

Mr. Davin

Is it not quite obvious to you, Sir, that it is impossible for the Minister to explain anything to people who will not understand?

Mr. Corry

The Minister's attention has been called to a very grave abuse and I want to know whether that abuse is going to be rectified, namely, that Ministers, as Deputies, write down to their constituents as Deputies and do not stamp their letters. They are writing as ordinary Deputies and not as Ministers to the constituents who elected them. I want to know is that going to be permitted.

Motion put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 73.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Everett, James.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Muleahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheehan, Michael.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.

Motion declared negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.