I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhraise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Roinne Puist agus Telegrafa, maraon le Telefóna.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1928, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, including Telephones.

The amount shown in the Supplementary Estimate is a token amount. The actual amount required, as Deputies will see by the Estimates, is £27,671, but as the savings on the total Vote amount to more than this sum we are asking the Dáil to vote £10. The money expended is made up of two items, an item of £11,125 for the purchase of sites, and an item of £16,546 under the heading of Stores other than Engineering Materials. The item for the purchase of sites is required because of an expansion in connection with the acquisition of a site to be allied with the Cork Post Office. The site has been acquired in MacCurtain Street, Cork. It is situated close to the railway station and to the quay, and is considered quite suitable for the purpose for which we require it—that is, as a sorting office.

This sum also contains an item for the acquisition of a site in connection with the Gorey post office. The Gorey post office was held on a lease. An opportunity has been given to us to purchase this, and we have done so. Portion of this vote—£1,000—is for that purpose. The other sub-head of the Vote relates to a sum of £16,546 and is for stores other than engineering material. The explanation of this Vote is as follows: In 1922, on the taking over of the Post Office service by the Free State Government, there was a shortage of postal bags required for the conveyance of mails between England and Ireland. We had no means of manufacturing these bags in the Free State at the time. The process we went through was that of keeping a sufficient quantity of these bags which passed to us from the British Postal service and using these for our own purposes. These gradually accumulated until we had sufficient to meet our requirements, and also until we had made preparations to have the bags we required manufactured in the Free State. From 1924, at which time we ceased to retain any surplus amount of the British bags, negotiations were continued in regard to the amount to be paid to Britain in connection with these bags. Eventually an agreement was arrived at this year for the payment of the bags in question, and the total we have agreed to pay Britain is £16,546. That is the reason this Vote is required.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether the other articles mentioned in the Vote—handcarts, letter-boxes, baskets, etc., are being made in Ireland at the present time? We would like to know that.

The Deputy is quoting from the total Vote. This Vote only deals with a particular item of mail bags. The Deputy is asking a question which is extraneous to this particular Vote. I am not in a position to give him any definite information. I do not know whether I am called upon to get any information in regard to these particular items, but I can say that, generally, as far as possible, we are getting all the store requirements of the Post Office manufactured in Ireland. We are giving a definite preference to Irish-made articles. There are some articles which cannot be manufactured in Ireland, and we are obliged to get these outside the country.

The Vote deals with two separate sub-heads—the purchase of sites and the purchase of stores other than engineering materials. The details at the foot of the Estimates deal with mail and parcels bags, handcarts, letter-boxes, baskets, etc. I think the question is quite a proper one to raise under this Vote.

That is the old Vote.

That is the total amount of the Vote. Under that heading the Vote was £52,246. That is the total amount shown in the estimate, but we are only asking for the additional amount of £16,546 for mail bags. The other items were included in the original estimate and could have been dealt with at that time.

The Vote comes under the heading of G (I), and I submit it is quite in order to ask a question about items enumerated in G (I).

As Deputy Davin points out, the Vote consists of two parts, and it always has been our practice to deal with the first part be-before taking the second. Anybody who wishes to raise a question in regard to the purchase of sites can do so before we take up G (I). Nobody, apparently, wishes to do so. In regard to G (I), in so far as Deputy Moore's question is in order, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has answered it— that we can only deal with the additional articles which are to be purchased under the new Vote. The Parliamentary Secretary states that the additional sum is entirely for bags.

I would like to ask your ruling on this: In the original estimate sums of money were voted for expenditure under certain headings. If, as a result of the expenditure of that money additional money is required, even for other matters such as the mail bags here, and if I find in connection with one of the items covered by sub-head G (I) that, to my mind, the money should not have been expended, am I not entitled to raise the question that the additional sum would not be necessary if the unnecessary purchases had not been made?

If your question had a direct bearing on the purchase of these particular bags you would be in order.

If I can show that the purchase of other items under sub-head G (I) was unnecessary and that the money saved thereby would have gone for the purchase of these bags——

I would rule that out of order.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if when the discussions were taking place with the British Government he put forward any claim on the head of mail bags made in British prisons by Irish prisoners of war. I am in earnest.

I did not put forward any claim of that kind.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not make it very clear what our obligations were. I presume we did not have to pay the full amount for the service of these bags. I presume the English Government bore a certain proportion.

I think the Deputy misunderstands my statement. As I pointed out earlier, there was a shortage of bags in this country. We met that shortage by the simple, and perhaps not altogether unjustifiable method of retaining the British bags which came across here. We retained the bags. Of course there is a question of reciprocity to a certain extent. Our bags are going to them, but this is for the balance which remains with us. There is always a certain number of bags passing backwards and forwards. There was a definite balance which remained on our hands and which had to be paid for.

I find myself in a difficulty. In the Supplementary Estimate itself there is a definite reference to cycles. Am I at liberty to raise the matter of cycles?

No.

Therefore, we cannot raise this matter at all?

You are not in a position to deal with it on this Vote. You are only entitled to deal with the money for the purchase of bags.

With reference to the payment to the British Government for these bags, I want to ask were not these bags originally purchased with Irish as well as with English money? Why should we have to pay for them now?

I presume when the segregation of the British and Irish Post Offices took place that a definite allocation of material was made to the Irish Post Office. At least the material which was then in the hands of the Irish Post Office was allocated to them.

Then we have to pay twice.

There was not a sufficient amount of mail-bags for internal purposes. In the ordinary course of events we would have to acquire these bags by purchase, or else manufacture them ourselves. It was not possible to manufacture the bags and not possible to purchase them internally, so the simplest way was to retain in our possession the bags coming across. This was done with the sanction of the British Post Office. The bags were definitely the property of the British and not of the Irish Post Office, and naturally we were called upon to pay for them, and we did.

Why the property of the British Post Office?

They were the property of the British Post Office. They were sent over here, and why would they not be their property?

Was it not a common service?

No; this was after the segregation.

I am afraid I do not understand it yet.

Were not these part of the assets of the British Empire?

Not at all. This was after the assets had been distributed.

We did not even get post-bags.

Did the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs send to the British Post Office and ask for these bags since the segregation?

It amounts to that.

It is not what it amounts to, but is it a fact that you sent for them recently—since the segregation?

That is not a fact, but it amounts to that.

It is the fact we want.

We did not physically send anybody over for them. The fact is that we retained the bags from the British Postal Service. We have reason to be obliged to the British Post Office for allowing us to retain the bags. We did not pay for the bags at cost price, but we had to assess the value. We got good value.

How did the bags come here in the first instance—I daresay they were left here because it was expected that they would be required to be used here?

They were constantly passing backwards and forward between England and Ireland with mails, parcels and letters for each country. In order to meet our internal requirements for bags, we, instead of sending back the surplus bags, retained them for our own use, and we paid for them at a later stage.

Yes, second-hand bags at cost price.

There can be no doubt about the price. We got good value.

We have here a sample of what is happening all the time—the British policy of what is ours is theirs, and what is theirs is their own.

Due to a lack of understanding on your own part.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has not been able to come to the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to make it very clear.

He has not.

That might not be due to my lack of effort, but to the Deputy's lack of understanding.

Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, amplified by the explanation given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, am I right in assuming that this is a case of confiscation where we are paying compensation?

The Deputy is nearly as bad as his leader.

The Deputy makes an insinuation which is in common with almost every other insinuation made by his side—that we get the worst of every bargain. The Deputy states that we paid the price of new bags for second-hand articles. I may inform the Deputy that we consider we got very good value, and the price we paid was not excessive.

Has this Government got any share whatever of the assets of the United Kingdom?

That has nothing to do with this debate.

It has a lot to do with this debate, and with a good many more matters, because our share of the assets would amount to a big figure.

We did get a considerable share of the assets of the United Kingdom, but a great proportion of what we got was destroyed by followers of the Deputy.

Were they in the bags?

By the orders of Mr. Churchill.

Did we pay for the bags in the same manner as we paid for the guns that attacked the Four Courts?