asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he has yet been paid the sum of £800 alleged to be due by Potez Aerospace Limited prior to their liquidation; and, if he has not been paid, if he will state the period covered by such account?

It would be contrary to practice to give information about an individual's or a firm's indebtedness to my Department.

Does the Minister not think it a scandal that an account as high as £800 should be allowed to accumulate in this case when everyone else knows that, if he allowed his account to get anywhere near a quarter of that figure, he would be cut off?

In reply to the Deputy, the amount of the telephone bill depends on the telephone usage and the kind of business being conducted. I do not want to make any exception to this very excellent rule that an individual's or a firm's telephone bill is not commented on in the Dáil, but I can assure the Deputy—he will have to take my word for it—that the figure mentioned in this report turns out to be, in fact, grossly excessive compared with the actual amount due.

How much is attributable to phoning being done by the personnel manager?

That is a separate question.

I presume an account of this size includes a substantial amount for international calls. The practice in regard to international calls for every telephone user is that his calls are detailed to him within a month after their being put through.

Again, without disclosing any further information or creating a precedent, the manner in which this account was dealt with differed in no way whatever from the manner in which other accounts are dealt with, both in attention to arrears and in relation to the liquidation of the firm, and so forth.

In that case it seems a very extraordinary amount.

The Minister says £800 is a grossly exaggerated figure. Would the Minister say how the liquidator had this figure in his statement of affairs which was put before the creditors?

The Deputy is now asking me to go into other matters. The Deputy will have to take my word for it that the figure turned out not to be the correct figure.

Who misinformed the liquidator? He had it on information received. Could the Minister say who gave him this figure?

For greater clarity, would the Minister refer to the former personnel manager with whom, I understand, he now has very close contact?

I do not know how it relates to this matter at all.

Go over to Mount Street and the Minister will get the answer there.

The Deputy is making a foolish suggestion.

The people decided who is foolish.

Nobody has decided anybody was foolish. This account was treated from the point of view of time and the period of non-payment of the amount in exactly the same way as the account of any other subscriber.