On last Thursday I asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs some questions about the appointment of a temporary auxiliary postman in Milford district. I put down three questions, seeking information as to how the appointment was made. In my first question, I asked for the names of the applicants and the places or marks obtained by each of them at the first interview. I received no information on that subject from the Minister, who more or less indicated that it was not his policy nor was it a good thing that such information should be made known.
In my other questions, I asked the Minister whether it was a fact that three interviews were held to fill one and the same job, and also whether it was a fact that the second interview was a special interview for one of the candidates who had already been interviewed. Thirdly, I asked him, under this same question, whether another and third interview had been held to interview a candidate for the position who had not been interviewed either at the first interview or at the second interview and who, apparently, had not been an applicant at that time for this position. I got no information whatever on any of these three points from the Minister. On the one particular point on which he did deign to give me some little information when I questioned him as to the policy in making such appointments, he stated that his policy was to appoint the most qualified applicant, regard being had to the claims of ex-Army applicants, to Irish qualifications in the case of vacancies in the Gaeltacht, and to candidates' domestic responsibilities.
In the first interview, which was held last October, my information is that there were 11 candidates interviewed, that those 11 were the persons whose names were submitted by the local employment exchange as suitable unemployed men in the vicinity. That, I think, is as it should be. However, the man who was placed first in the list of the candidates interviewed did not, it is safe to assume, meet with some requirements known only to the Minister himself and that, I suggest, is the reason why it was seen fit to have a second interview about a fortnight later, at which another candidate, who was placed lower in the list, was interviewed, with a view to having this man placed in the position.
It apparently transpired that this second interview was not sufficient either in itself to make this man qualify or come first on the list. This man's name, to my knowledge, is Sweeney. Had he got this position, while I would still feel aggrieved that the person who had held the temporary position did not succeed, I would not feel so much aggrieved as I do that the man, Leavy by name, has succeeded in getting the job. The man who held the temporary position for 16 months, prior to the appointment which took place recently, by name Tony Duggan, carried out the duties attached to the temporary post in what I am safe in saying was an exemplary manner and a manner satisfactory to all concerned. Furthermore, he is a married man with a wife and two dependent children. He has got no means of support whatever and, as well as that, his Army service, despite what the Minister may say to the contrary, is beyond question and is far greater and much more meritorious than that of the candidate appointed.
The Minister stated here, in answer to a Supplementary Question, that the candidate selected had some years' service in the Marine Force, that the other man had no Army service, and that another person recommended by Deputy Blaney had one month's Army service and was discharged on medical grounds. Let us see what this month's service actually entails. This man to whom the Minister referred was this Tony Duggan in question. Dugan in 1934 joined the Irish Volunteers and served in those Volunteers, and attended all the courses connected with the Volunteer Force until 1938, when he had the misfortune to be involved in a very serious accident, the result of which was that he was confined to bed for two years. That brought us into 1940. The war was then on and recruits were being looked for and requested for the Army. Duggan volunteered for the Army again, was accepted, but after a month's service it was found that, due to his disability suffered in that accident in 1938, he was medically unfit and was so discharged.
The night after his discharge, on arriving back again at his home, he came along and joined the L.S.F.—A Group. Later he was transferred to the L.D.F., in which he served as section leader and later as assistant group leader and group leader. He continued in that force until that force was disbanded and then he transferred to the F.C.A., in which he is to-day a serving member. This is his service, and if there is anything to be said about it I think it should be that it is a credit to Duggan himself.
On the other hand, let us take the Marine Service by the man appointed, Leavy. He joined the Marine Service in 1946 and served until 1948. Leavy was in this country and available for service in the marines, Army or Local auxiliary services during the war, but I do not think you will find his name figuring to the extent of even a month in any of them. Furthermore, the two years which he did serve in the marines were, I think all will agree, to his own advantage, since during those two years and during the time he was there he was actually learning or perfecting his trade as cobbler; and on returning home in 1948 and since then he has been fully employed in that capacity; and, as a matter of fact, was employed up to the very day before he took on this position which was granted.
He is a single man, he has no dependants whatsoever; he has a trade and was employed in continuous employment for the past two years; and there is no reason to believe that he will not, and could not, be in it for the next 20 years. Here we find him being given precedence over a man who carried out the temporary job satisfactorily, a man who is married and has dependent children, who has no house of his own and who, due to the accident he had, is medically unfit to do a manual labourer's work.
Can the Minister in conscience stand over this selection? Will he say that these appointments are made without his knowledge and that he really does not have much to do with them? Knowing that such an excuse has been used in the past by various Ministers, on hearing the rumour that Leavy was likely to be appointed, I took it on myself to write personally to the Minister to indicate that he would be doing a grave injustice if he overlooked Duggan's claims. I pointed out Duggan's volunteer service, his offer of service to the Army and his service in the L.D.F., so that the Minister would not, by some mistake, appoint someone who was less qualified and less deserving. The Minister cannot fall back on such an excuse. I wonder what the Minister will say or what the House will think when I say that this appointment absolutely stinks of that political corruption and jobbery to end which the Minister claims he got into office and put Fianna Fáil out.
