This will be a very short debate. First, I want to say that this question could have been adequately dealt with, if the Minister had been so disposed, on 20th November when, finally, we got to the point of raising the question that had been on the Order Paper at that time for approximately three weeks. As we know, certain Ministers are in the privileged position that they now answer questions only on one day a week.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is normally a courteous and helpful Minister at Question Time but on this occasion he was neither courteous nor helpful and apart from the fact that he gave quite an inadequate reply to the question he also threw in a few smartaleck replies to my supplementaries on that occasion. There was no party political content in the subject matter: it was a serious question to the Minister and merited more serious treatment than the Minister was prepared to give it on that occasion. Some time has elapsed since the question was taken in the House and it may be well to remind the House of what the question was. It related to the service available to people using franking machines and a comparison between that service and the service available to people who use stamps in the ordinary way.
The question was:
To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he is aware that better mail collection and delivery services are available to a person who posts one letter per annum than are available to firms with franking machines spending over £1,000 per year on postage; and if he will introduce as a matter of urgency an improved service for persons using franking machines.
That is a very reasonable question. As well as giving an inadequate reply the Minister pretended that I was inferring that people who were well enough off to buy themselves franking machines were entitled to better service than the ordinary man-in-the-street, as the Minister put it. What I was saying is that everybody is entitled to the same service; all pay for it and pay at the same rate. The Minister's inference was that I was more concerned about the rich than the poor. I want to remind the Minister that, like every other Deputy, practically 80 per cent of my time is spent working for the poorer classes in society and this is as it should be. I resent very much any implication that I was more concerned about people who are in the happy position of having franking machines.
The person who approached me about this is a constituent of mine and is anything but a wealthy man but his business is such that he has an immense amount of mail. Consequently, he pays in the region of £1,000 per year for postage. He feels—and I think rightly—that he is entitled to a reasonable service. I pointed out to the Minister that people who use franking machines do not get anything like the same service as other users of the mail. First, they can only post on five days a week, in fact only on 4½ days a week, because most of the specified offices close at 1 o'clock on one of the five days and they are not open on Saturdays or Sundays. This means that the last time for posting franked mail is at 4.30 approximately on Friday afternoon and from then until Monday there is no post for the man with the franking machine. Even though he counts and sorts and packs his mail he is not allowed to use the ordinary post box or any post office he likes. This is a very inadequate service. Such a user is entitled to the same service as a man who stamps a letter in the ordinary way and can post it up to 11.55 on Sunday night in any part of the Dublin region and it will be delivered on the following morning. Even if he puts no stamp on it but just throws it into the letter-box it will be delivered on Monday morning. But the man with the franking machine must give up any hope of posting after 4.30 on Friday. The Minister considers this is adequate service.
It is well known that the Minister's Department is regarded by all as probably the most inefficient Department. It is deplorable that a young Minister should not be anxious to improve the efficiency of the services of his Department whenever he can. He should be anxious to hear from Deputies where there are inadequacies that he can do something about and surely this is one place where he can bring about an improvement? What I wanted to know from the Minister at Question Time was the reason why mail that was counted, sorted and packed by the customer could not be regarded as deserving of the same treatment as all other mail that was not so packed, so sorted, so delivered in specified offices.
There is a completely antiquated and outdated outlook in the general sorting office in relation to mail of this kind and we are entitled to hear from the Minister in a simple courteous straightforward way why this is so. That is what Question Time is for and I will always insist on my right to be treated as I should be treated and get an adequate and helpful reply to a serious question. That, I must say, is what the Minister normally gives but he certainly did not give it to me on this occasion.
