Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Apr 1943

Vol. 89 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Appointment of Employment Exchange Manager.

On the Order Paper to-day, the following question, in my name, appeared:—

"To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he has recently made an appointment at Mallow, County Cork, of a manager of the local employment exchange; whether he will state whether, before the making of the appointment, the vacancy was advertised or otherwise announced; the number of applications received, and the method followed for selecting a suitable candidate; whether an interview board was constituted, and, if so, whether the person placed first by the board was appointed; whether he will state the grounds on which he declined to appoint the young lady who had been administering the office, on behalf of the then manager, for a period of ten years; whether he will state the name, experience and the qualifications of the person appointed to the post and the grounds on which the appointment was made."

The Parliamentary Secretary replied as follows:—

"A part-time branch manager has recently been appointed to the Branch Employment Office, Mallow. The vacancy was advertised in the local Press and by posters exhibited in the branch office area. Applications were received from 26 persons, but eight of these subsequently withdrew. A board was appointed to interview the candidates and report on the suitability of each for the appointment. From among those considered suitable, Mr. Martin Kelly McGrath, of Banteer, appeared to be the best qualified for the post, and he was appointed.

I do not consider it in the public interest to disclose the placings of candidates by the interviewing board or the grounds upon which one candidate rather than another was considered best qualified for appointment."

Now, I should like to say at the outset that this phrase, "in the public interest", has become a sort of parrot cry in this House whenever it is necessary for Ministers to shirk explanations. It has been used very frequently, and, I suggest, it has been abused very frequently. I think I will be able to convince the House that that phrase has been abused here this afternoon. It was employed here this afternoon to hide a transaction that was neither creditable nor honourable.

Mallow is a very important and historic town, a town that produced very many great men, a town of hallowed memories, a town of unsullied patriotism so far as very many of its prominent citizens are concerned. On this occasion it is coupled with what I regard as a very discreditable transaction, a transaction in which all claims to service, to experience, to merit, every consideration that should guide the authorities in the making of an appointment of this kind, were flung to the winds; a transaction in which political favouritism and political racketeering were carried perhaps even further than they have been carried in the last few years, and that is far enough, because we do know— there is no secret about this fact—that in appointments of this kind the policy which has guided the present Government is that the spoils should go to the victors. That is the pure and unadulterated truth. In spite of that pious rectitude with which the Taoiseach surrounds himself occasionally, and in spite of the platitudes we have heard about the Constitution and equality of liberties, there is not a thought or a word about principles of that kind when it comes to sharing the spoils. Perhaps I should not say "sharing the spoils", because they are not shared; they are kept well within the Party fold on every occasion when they come to be apportioned.

The story of this appointment in Mallow is a simple enough one. In the town of Mallow, in charge of the branch employment exchange, there was a manager who had attained a venerable age. For a number of years he had been assisted by a lady who acted as his deputy, and who had really been for that number of years —ten years, I think—actually managing the exchange. I have not the least idea as to whether or not that lady has any political affiliations. I know nothing about her views on questions of that kind. But I am reliably informed, and I assert here, that she was the best qualified person for this post. I make the further assertion that the person who was placed first by the interview board set up to examine the qualifications of the candidates was not appointed. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that that is the reason why it was considered necessary to employ here this afternoon the parrot cry that it was not in the public interest to disclose either the qualifications of the candidates or their placings by the interview board. I suggest further that the person appointed was appointed purely because of political reasons, because of political claims, because he was the principal adherent in that constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary who made the appointment. I repeat that the qualifications of the person who had been virtually in charge of the employment exchange for a number of years were bound to rank extremely high. In fact, I have testimony, which I will produce to the House at a later stage, to show that that is so.

I am satisfied that the story of what happened in Mallow is the story of what happened in Newmarket, and the story of what happened in Bantry recently, where a young lad who was fully qualified, having passed the matriculation and leaving certificate examinations, was turned down for a post in the labour exchange, while the appointment was given to a political adherent of the Party in power, who had none of those qualifications. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the position in Newmarket, but if there is any desire for further illumination on that point I am prepared to give it. If we had here—perhaps we will have —a definite avowal that all appointments of this kind will automatically go to supporters and adherents of the present Government, then we would know exactly where we were. If that is definitely stated here in this House, we will know exactly where we stand. If, on the other hand, we have a continuation of this farcical procedure under which the Department sets up an interview board, invites applications, and, as in this case, induces a number of people to apply, I think the whole position is ridiculous having regard to the fact that the appointment is made in advance. Why not refer them to the executive of the Fianna Fáil organisation in the constituency, and let them make the selection? In this case, the secretary of the Fianna Fáil organisation in the constituency was appointed, and I suggest that that was his main claim to the appointment. I am borne out in that view by a letter written by the Parliamentary Secretary from his office on 21st January, 1943. Deputy Moylan, writing to Mr. Gilligan on that date, committed himself to the delightfully frank views of which I am about to put the House in possession. The letter reads:—

"Dear Mr. Gilligan,

I have your letter and a number of others in relation to Miss Nan Gilligan's application for the position vacant at Mallow. The appointee shall, in the first instance, be certified as competent and suitable for the position by the interview board. I believe Miss Gilligan will fulfil that condition. From the list certified as competent, I shall appoint the person best suited to the position from a political viewpoint. No matter what decision I make I am bound to offend a number of people, but I intend myself to make the appointment. I could not agree to delegate authority to do so to anybody else.

Yours very sincerely,

SEÁN MOYLAN."

The letter was addressed: "Mr. J. Gilligan, 4 Chapel Street, Tullamore, Offaly." A further letter to Miss Nan Gilligan, 72 Main Street, Mallow, written on 16th February, 1943, said:

"I regret that in making the appointment in Mallow I have had to regard the claims of another applicant as being more urgent than yours."

That is the whole story. I would be satisfied if that viewpoint were expressed officially and laid down as a principle, because it would save all this trouble about applications, and we would all be quite clear as to the position. In fact, in this particular case the eight candidates who withdrew were keen, intelligent people, because apparently they realised that with Mr. McGrath in the field they had not a chance, and they did not desire to participate in the farce any further. But Miss Gilligan, relying on her merits, relying on her experience, relying on her knowledge of the work she was offering to undertake, continued in this forlorn fight, with the result of which the House is aware.

There is a system in America whereby, when a Government comes into power, all the offices within the gift of that Government go to their friends. That creates a situation that is quite well understood in America and, when a change of Government comes about there, all the persons expecting positions of any kind know that their time has arrived. It has not been admitted, here, even though there have been many indications that things of that type have taken place, that that is the principle on which appointments are made. Although I am aware what a frank person the Parliamentary Secretary is—he is rather unconventional in many ways— I thought that his letter on this occasion was an unusually frank one. I think it is right that the House should be informed that, so far as the Parliamentary Secretary who made this appointment is concerned, there are no longer any illusions about the manner in which appointments of this kind have been, or are likely to be, made.

I decided to bring this matter forward, not that I have any hope that what has happened in Mallow is going to be changed in any way by anything that I say, and not that I have any hope that the Government will admit anything in the way of political corruption in relation to the appointment, or that they will be inclined to change, in the evening of their existence as a Government, and will treat the country to anything like a death-bed repentance. All the indications are that the sands are running out for the Government. I am sure they have quite a number of people to provide for still, so it is probably too much to hope that there will be any change in their attitude.

I regard transactions of this kind as truly discreditable. So long as there is any pretence at having an interview board and there is any system of competitive examination in vogue, I regard it as discreditable that appointments should be made in this way. If the pretence of approaching the filling of vacancies of this kind in a fair and impartial manner is completely abandoned, there is no more to be said about the matter, but, so long as that attitude is maintained, surely the views of the interview board, and their recommendations as to the general suitability of candidates, ought to be the factors that count? I suggest they did not count on this occasion. I repeat that the person placed first by the interview board was not appointed. I repeat that the persons best qualified for the post were not considered and that the appointment was made purely on a political basis.

This is an example of what has happened in many other respects. We are aware that Ministers have gone so far as to interfere in the appointment of auxiliary postmen in the country. That has frequently occurred, and ministerial meddling in appointments of this character has become the accepted order rather than the exception for a number of years past. I challenge a policy of that kind and I ask the people who came into this House on the high-sounding slogan that Fianna Fáil was out to abolish past dissensions, and who treated us to a number of high-sounding catch-cries of that type, to justify a policy of that kind, to explain why the manager of this office in Mallow should be appointed for political considerations only, and to say whether that is their conception of democratic government and impartial administration.

It is a pity that the Deputy, when he went to the trouble of preparing his brief, did not go more thoroughly into the matter. He has made the statement that the young lady who acted as deputy for the former manager of the employment exchange for ten years had been turned down. The young lady who acted as the former manager's deputy did not apply for the position at all, good, bad or indifferent. The case Deputy Murphy is making concerns, I presume, another young lady, who was employed in a clerical capacity in that office.

But even Deputy Murphy, notwithstanding all the allegations he has made, has not stated that the person who was appointed was not fully qualified. The Deputy has gone out of his way to try to make political capital out of the appointment. The gentleman who was appointed was in every way qualified to carry out the duties of the office. I have examined the file very carefully, and I have looked up this man's qualifications and record in previous employment, and, in addition, I might add that he is a man who served his country in time of need. Because of that consideration, I think men of his type are entitled to a preference, all other things being equal. I stand over the appointment made by my predecessor; it is an appointment that I would be proud to make.

I am sure you would.

I do not think the Deputy would challenge that man's qualifications——

I would, certainly.

——judged by any standard. In my opinion the man who was appointed was head and shoulders above any other competitor, and, because of that, because of his standing, his integrity and his national record, I would certainly have been proud, if it were my duty to do it, to appoint the man who has been appointed.

Deputy Murphy makes great play about the constitution of the board. The board is constituted for the purpose of examining candidates in order to ascertain their qualifications, and the recommendations of the board have to be borne in mind when the appointment is being made. That was the procedure in this instance and my predecessor determined—and I agree with his decision—that the person concerned, Mr. McGrath, was the best qualified and the most suitable person, and I do not think that I or my predecessor should have any apology to make to anybody for what was done. I stand over the appointment. If the papers had been submitted to me, without knowing any of the parties and merely going through their files, I would have acted exactly as my predecessor did.

I should like to put this to the Parliamentary Secretary: if they were aware of this man's qualifications before the notice was issued asking for applications for the post, and if they regarded him as being head and shoulders over everybody else in the district, why was he not appointed straight away, and not put other people to the trouble of making applications for a job for which this one man was obviously fitted? I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his declaration that where people have national service of a certain type they are entitled to every consideration. That is a principle of which I very much approve.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us the placings of the board?

I have already refused to give the placings, and for very obvious reasons. To do so would mean casting a slur on everybody who was not placed first. There were 26 applicants for the position, and it is not my duty or inclination to cast a slur on the other applicants. I did not quite catch Deputy MacEoin's question.

My question was this: When the person appointed had the prominent qualifications that you have described—you said he was head and shoulders above every other candidate—and had the national service that you have referred to, why were other people put to the trouble of making application for the position? Why not have appointed him direct in the first instance?

When a vacancy occurs the custom is to advertise it. We did not know at the time but that somebody more highly qualified than this man would have applied for the position. That could not be determined until the applications had been received and examined by the board.

That is a joke.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 8th April, 1943.

Top
Share