On the Adjournment, Deputy Keyes has given notice to raise the subject matter of question 21 on yesterday's Order Paper.
Dismissal of Temporary Postman (County Limerick).
Yesterday I addressed the following question to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs:—
"To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state the reason for the removal from his position as temporary postman at Ballyhahill, County Limerick, of John Quinlivan, a man having a family of six children, and his replacement by a man having no family."
I got the following reply from the Minister:—
"When the vacancy arose, Mr. Quinlivan was employed in a purely temporary capacity pending the selection of a candidate. This gave him no claim to the appointment, and the temporary character of his employment was made clear to him. He was subsequently displaced in favour of a more suitable applicant.
The Deputy's question is misleading. I appointed Mr. Regan because I regarded him as the most suitable for the work, and he is not without dependents. It is also wrong to imply that Mr. Quinlivan will suffer financially as a result of the appointment.
I suggest that there was nothing misleading in the question. It was a bare statement of the facts as I knew them. I will give the Minister an opportunity of pointing out to me in what way my question was misleading. I still assert that it was a bare statement of the facts of what happened. Furthermore, there was no implication in that question of mine as to Mr. Quinlivan's position being worsened or otherwise. I did not advert to that at all. Any implication in the matter was an implication by the Minister, who says in effect that Mr. Quinlivan will be at least as well off unemployed as if he were working for the Minister. The only implication I can draw from the Minister's reply is that, being registered at the labour exchange, and as he has six children, Mr. Quinlivan would be entitled to get as much in unemployment assistance as he would get for working for the Minister in the important but badly-paid position of a rural postman. I did not make any of these suggestions. I asked the Minister to state the grounds upon which this man was removed from the position to which he had been sent by the labour exchange two months ago on the retirement of the former rural postman.
The position of Mr. Quinlivan is that he has a wife and six children solely dependent on his earnings or on unemployment assistance. He carried out the work of a rural postman during the Christmas rush for several years past and was conversant with the work. No complaint was ever made as to the way he carried out his duties. He is a member of the L.S.F. and, at the general elections in 1943 and 1944, he acted in the capacity of a Civic Guard at a polling booth, showing that he is a man of reliable character. The labour exchange, which I understand is the medium for supplying workers to private employers, public authorities and Government Departments in accordance with the amount of unemployment assistance being drawn, which is related directly to the family responsibilities, sent this man to take up the position of rural postman at Ballyhahill some two months ago. A week or two ago an order came from the Minister's Department that he must be dismissed and the job given to another man. If that other man had bigger family responsibilities, I would not have asked the question. But, on inquiry, I find that this other man, who had come from a neighbouring village or town some short time ago to Ballyhahill, was married only in January last, and, therefore, has no family commitments. He was lucky enough to marry a lady who is employed, as she is caretaker of the local church. The situation I am putting to the Minister is that Mr. Quinlivan, who has a wife and six children and has to go back to the labour exchange to draw unemployment assistance, is a more deserving case than a man who was married only two months ago and whose wife is employed. That man was sent to a job on the Clonleharde bog road and worked there for a couple of weeks. He left that employment to take up another job with a creamery manager with whom he had been working for the best part of last year and was working when he was given this job. I want to know if the Minister is entitled to ignore or override the decision of the labour exchange set up by the Department of Industry and Commerce to hold the scales evenly as between one citizen and another.
Is the Minister entitled to employ a man who is not actually signing at the exchange? I suggest that he is not so entitled, if he has any regard to the responsibility of his position. If public authorities and Departments of State can override and ignore the functions of the labour exchange, how can we expect respect for that institution from private citizens?
That is a statement in extension of a very simple question, in which I have been accused of being misleading and of making implications. The Minister has told me that Mr. Quinlivan was suffering no financial loss. If he in his reply tells the House that he is employing a temporary postman at a remuneration less than that which the man would draw as an unemployed man, there is then a reflection on the Minister administering such a Department. If he were conscious of his duty, he would not remain there without taking steps—and he would have the support of everyone in the House in doing so—to get out of that situation and see that he employs people in responsible work at a wage higher than the amount they would get when unemployed and on the dole.
Finally, I know there is one exception to the rule in the labour exchanges as to giving preference in regard to work. That exception is in the case of keymen in particular jobs of an intricate character. In that case, when such a keyman is required, he may be picked out and employed, though he may not be the highest on the labour exchange relief list. I want to know if the Minister will advance that he has taken this man as being a keyman to carry letters around Ballyhahill. That suggestion will not bear the light of investigation, as Mr. Regan was an inexperienced man and Mr. Quinlivan was experienced, so there is very little left in the way of reason for the appointment. Would the Minister be prepared to admit the suggestion, which is general in the locality, that Mr. Regan was appointed by the Minister to this menial post for the very good reason that he was a sound Fianna Fáil man and the other man had not that qualification? There is that general feeling in the locality and there are certain circumstances locally to justify that feeling but the Minister now has an opportunity to repudiate or accept the statement. If it is to be a dogma of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he is entitled to appoint a man to carry letters in rural areas, when a vacancy occurs, only when there is proof of loyal service to the Fianna Fáil organisation, then we ought to be told that and not have men wasting their time in making applications for such posts.
I think it is rather unfortunate to have to discuss the various merits of two very excellent persons in a place like Ballyhahill and compare their qualifications or qualities, and what their politics are. It comes as a surprise to me that the Deputy claims Mr. Quinlivan as a supporter of his Party rather than of ours, as I happen to have a letter from Mr. Quinlivan in which he himself says that he is a Fianna Fáil man. So, apparently, politics does not count in this case. I am sure that Mr. Quinlivan is an excellent person; he is a member of the L.S.F. and quite a good man in his own way. However, the other man has also qualities of a kind which, to some extent, are taken into consideration. Mr. Regan was a very active member of the L.D.F. and has a fine record as an Old I.R.A. man, and he also has dependents.
The reason why I said the Deputy's question was misleading was that it suggested I was taking the bread and butter out of the mouths of a man and his children and giving it to a man who had no dependents at all. That is not a fact. I have it on the file here that Mr. Regan has elderly parents who, apparently, have no means of livelihood, or very slight means, and obviously he must be helping to support them. As well as that, he was married recently. Mr. Quinlivan happens to have the benefit of the Children's Allowances Act, and in unemployment assistance he gets a considerable sum, so that I do not feel that I was depriving him of anything at all. I did quite the contrary, as a matter of fact by giving the job to Mr. Regan, whose recommendations to me were such that I felt he was a very admirable and suitable person. He happens to live immediately beside the post office and is available for carrying telegrams, which is often of grave inconvenience if a postman lives far away. The other man does not live very far away, about a mile off, but when balancing up in a case like that on the nicer points, one has to make a choice. When I saw that no injury was being done to Mr. Quinlivan, I felt I could exercise my discretion.
It is absurd to say that another Department is going to make appointments in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is my responsibility to make the appointments, and I am not bound by any other Department. I am guided by them and I get the full facts. The position was filled in a purely acting or momentary capacity, until the appointment was made by me. The automatic operation is to put in a man who has certain financial commitments from the point of view of the labour exchange. The man goes in in that automatic way, but that is only for the moment as a stop-gap, until the Department has reported to the Minister on all the facts and the Minister makes his own decision. It would be a reductio ad absurdum if the Minister in one Department were to make appointments in another Department and carry out its functions. I do not think the Deputy has really much grounds to go on. There always will be a certain difference of opinion as to the merits of one man or another for a position like that. I have the letter here to show that there is no politics in it of any kind. Having given careful consideration to both claims, I have chosen the man who has shown himself to have the most character from a public-spirited point of view and from the point of view of being physically closer to the work and, therefore, most suitable under the circumstances.
Would the Minister clear up one point, which has taken on a new significance? He mentions that he is not bound, in making these appointments, to advert to certain financial considerations.
I did not say I was not bound to advert to them.
I understood the position to be that the Department of Industry and Commerce required, in the filling of temporary appointments in the Post Office and other Government Departments, that preference be given to the person in receipt of the largest amount of unemployment benefit?
Other things being equal.
Yes, so that the largest amount of unemployment benefit, other things being equal, determines the matter?
Yes.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 23rd March.