§ MR. KEARLEYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he intends to publish the evidence taken by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, in accordance with the definite promise to do so made by his predecessor in this House on 17th May 1895?
§ MR. HANBURYYes, Sir.
§ MR. D. MACALEESE () Monaghan, N.I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, in accordance with the Inter-Departmental Report, an auxiliary postman will be a person whose total period of duty does not exceed three hours daily, what provision will be made for rural auxiliaries in Ireland who perform four and four and a half hours' duty daily; whether four hours' rural men in Ireland, who discharge their duties under adverse conditions, will have the benefits accorded to five hours' men employed in towns and cities; and, can the Department see their way to give men doing 605 four hours' duty an extra hour's employment to bring them within the benefit of sick pay, boot money, and the prescribed holiday?
§ MR. HANBURYIt is the arrangement under the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee that in future an auxiliary postman will be a person whose total period of duty does not exceed three hours daily; but of course this change will be introduced gradually as opportunity offers, and will not necessitate the discharge of existing rural auxiliaries in Ireland or elsewhere who perform a longer period of duty daily. It is not understood what is meant by the reference to four hours' rural men in Ireland who discharge their duties under adverse conditions. The rural postmen in Ireland are paid on the same principle as those in Great Britain, and will share with them the benefits of the new scheme. But they cannot be accorded the privileges designed for the five hours' men, nor would it be possible to give them an extra hour's work in order to qualify them for those privileges.
§ MR. MCCARTAN () Down, S.I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the rule laid down that postal and telegraphic officials can only complain to the postal authorities by way of memorial, in order to have their complaint considered, whether his attention has been called to the indignation meeting held by officials in Dublin last Saturday, about the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee; and whether he will state why postal and telegraphic officials are to be debarred the ordinary right of organisation, and of making representations to the Postmaster General by way of public meeting and resolutions, now open to all trades unionists and officials who have reason to make complaint to their employers?
§ MR. HANBURYThe Postmaster General has seen in the newspapers reports of a meeting held by officers of the Departments in Dublin on the subject of the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, but his attention has not so far been directed to the matter officially. It is not the fact that postal and telegraph officials are debarred the ordinary rights of organisation, which has been expressly conceded to them, and of which they 606 fully avail themselves. But the Postmaster General has always required that if as the result of their meetings or deliberation they should desire to approach him on any subject, they should do so by memorial through their superior officers. In the interests of the Service he considers it desirable to maintain the rule.
§ MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN () Limerick, W.I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the Departmental Report on Post Office Establishments, the supervisors of the upper section employed in the London Postal Service Department will participate in the prospective promotions to assistant superintendentship?
§ MR. HANBURYOne of the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee is that the Supervisors of the upper section in the London Postal Service, who are six in number, should retain their present scale; but that no new appointment shall be made to this class. Whatever prospects in the past these officers had to promotion have not been affected by the Report; but it is only right to add that as a matter of fact it has not been the practice to promote them to the office of Assistant Superintendents.