asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state (1) the number of (a) Post Office Savings Bank books and (b) Savings Certificates accounts in Ballinalee Post Office; (2) the date subsequent to 21st June, 1952, on which investigations were carried out on each book or account and the final date on which the investigations on such book or account were concluded; (3) the date upon which I applied to him for the charges against Mrs. Devine; and (4) the date and nature of the reply refusing to inform me of the charges and if he told me to apply to the very prominent person in Ballinalee for the details of the charges.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ballinalee Post Office.
1. (a) There were 287 Savings Bank books involved. (b) There is no such thing as a Savings Certificates account but there are approximately 300,000 holders of Savings Certificates in the State and these holdings are registered in serial form at headquarters. Without spending an entirely disproportionate amount of time and labour onthe examination of every individual holding, it is impossible to say what certificates were purchased at Ballinalee or, indeed, at any other office.
2. The examination of the Savings Bank books commenced on 27th August, 1952, and was completed on 31st December, 1952. No examination of savings Certificates holdings was made.
3. No written application from the Deputy for details of the irregularities was received by me.
4. The first part of this section of the Deputy's question does not, therefore, arise. As regards the second part, it was suggested to the Deputy in a letter dated the 15th September, 1952, that he consult a prominent local person who has been acquainted with the full circumstances of the case. The Deputy acknowledged in a letter to me that he had consulted the person.
It distressed me more than the House can appreciate to ventilate the facts of this case on February 5th, a course forced upon me by circumstances over which I had no control, and I sincerely trust I have now heard the last of the matter. I can assure the House that I have an adequate answer to any question any Deputy might care to ask, but I feel I can with safety rely upon the discretion of Deputies not to force on me the painful task of again emphasising the facts and dispelling doubts based upon a false interpretation of the events which led inevitably and according to unvarying tradition to my final decision.
Is the Minister aware that on the last occasion he declared that I was a very bad advocate? May I ask him whether, if I had been a better advocate, and if my political colour had been different——
That is a very ugly implication.
A deliberate charge was made against me here and Deputy Burke sat quiet and allowed that charge to be levelled. I want to know whether, if an advocate of a different political colour had been engaged, the Minister's decision would have been different. I want to askalso if he is prepared to do in public what he has done privately and under shelter of the privileges of the House, that is, to make these charges to a local Fianna Fáil executive in the County of Longford? If he is, I am prepared to attend and defend Mrs. Devine before that executive.
Keep stirring.
Bad advocate as I am, I will attend and I will accept the decision of that executive as to whether Mrs. Devine should have been dismissed or not, or whether she was harshly treated or not.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy would be well advised to let it drop.
In the middle of November, Deputy MacEoin, accompanied by Deputy Carter, made verbal representations to me on behalf of the postmistress and was given all the facts upon which the dismissal was based. Deputy Carter was present, and in his own right as a Deputy wished to assure himself in the same way as Deputy MacEoin that this dismissal was justified in view of the wide agitation that had taken place. Deputy MacEoin was informed that the postmistress had admitted the charges in statements made by her to officers of the Department. The Deputy was also informed that the decision had been made by me, in September, 1952, not to forward the papers to the Attorney-General with a view to a public prosecution, and that she was dismissed because of the chaos in the office and gross irregularities regardless of her motives and that this decision by me should hold good unless further irregularities were found in the savings books being investigated. The actual position is that from the time the postmistress signed her second statement of admission, it was open to any friend of hers or to her solicitor to suggest to her that she should renounce her statement and to take such action as was available to her, according to the ordinary law of the land, to deny the validity of the charges. No such action was taken by any person, and the postmistress herself,neither on the advice of her solicitor nor of any other person, has ever made any statement renouncing the correctness of the statements she signed.
The Minister has not answered my invitation to make the charges before the local executive. He has said that she did not repudiate her statements. I assert that she did and I assert that she made a statement which I submitted to the Minister. Did the Minister or his Department receive from me a written statement by Mrs. Devine—I have not got the exact date -setting out the facts from her side? Why did the Minister not advert to the circumstances to which he referred?
This question has reference to facts: the date subsequent to 21st June on which investigations were carried out; the date on which the Deputy applied for the charges against the person concerned; the date and nature of the reply. There seems to be a desire to reopen the whole matter. It cannot be reopened on this question and I must call the next question.
Is it in order for a Deputy to suggest that a separate judiciary should be set up in Ballinalee?
No, but I suggest that Ballinalee would be just as good as the haymarket.