asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state (a) why the post office was changed from where it had been carried on successfully for a number of years at Tagoat, County Wexford, (b) how many applicants applied for the position, (c) if the candidate appointed was recommended by the departmental selection committee as the best candidate, and (d) the cost of the transfer.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tagoat (County Wexford) Post Office.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will indicate the reasons that motivated the change of venue of the post office in Tagoat, County Wexford, in view of the fact that it had been situated where it was for 100 years and as the late postmistress had given at all times great satisfaction to all who had occasion to use it.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state the circumstances under which the post office in Tagoat, County Wexford, was changed to new premises.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to reply to Questions Nos. 35, 36 and 37 together.
The sub-post office at Tagoat has been removed to new premises as a result of the appointment of a new sub-postmaster. When the late sub-postmistress died, no relative applied for a transfer of the office and, accordingly, the position was advertised in the usual way. Among other requirements, the successful applicant had to provide premises. There were five applicants. The applicant who was regarded as most suitable offered premises other than those in which the office had been previously carried on and the office was removed accordingly at an estimated cost of £2 10s.
It would not be in accordance with practice to disclose the nature of therecommendation made by the departmental selection board.
Was the new sub-postmaster appointed by the board?
The Minister appoints sub-postmasters.
Is that not since you went back to power?
On the contrary, before this Government came into office the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had complete and absolute responsibility for the appointment of postmasters.
I am not quite clear as to what the position is. I did not hear the Minister very well as to why the post office was removed to the present premises from where it was originally situated. Were the previous premises considered unsatisfactory?
The Deputy seems to be under the illusion that where a relative does not apply for the transfer of the post office to his or her name, there is some custom whereby the post office is kept in the same building. That is not the case at all. Unless a relative applies giving him some claim to prior consideration in regard to which the Minister may use his discretion, it is customary on occasions to transfer the office to some other premises. There is no precedent for not so doing.
Quite apart from that, in this particular instance the post office had been situated for a considerable period, actually over 100 years, in these premises. The business has been carried on in recent times by a highly qualified assistant who had worked under the previous postmistress and the applicant living in these premises was prepared to continue to employ her. Surely then there could be no logical reason for transferring the post office?
When a post office is left temporarily in the hands of a person who acquires the premises, it may be that the person who is finally appointed is not that person. There isno reflection cast on the temporary occupant at all.
Would the Minister say whether the new premises were reconstructed or renovated to suit the requirements of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs before or after the appointment of the present sub-postmaster was made?
It is quite frequent for applicants for post offices to state in their application form that they are prepared to make certain alterations in their premises. They inform the local postmaster or the senior inspector of the Department and he goes down and inspects the premises. That is what happened in this case. That is also a long-established precedent.
Does the Minister recollect his statement in regard to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses when he introduced his first Estimate here, in which he said he would continue the practice that was established by his predecessor, that practice being that the person who was recommended by the departmental committee would be appointed?
I have appointed scores of sub-postmasters on the recommendation of the selection board. Their advice is excellent and valuable to me. When I spoke on the occasion of the Estimate, I made it clear that I had departed from their recommendation on a number of occasions.
Where the candidate was the chairman of the Fianna Fáil club.
In certain cases——
(Interruptions.)
If he was a Molly Maguire what would the Deputy do?
Perhaps Deputies from both sides of the House would allow the Minister to make his statement.
I am not clear why, when the post office was where it was, the candidate who was chosen should have any particular preference overanother applicant who had suitable premises and a qualified assistant ready to carry on the business.
I have already indicated that a person who has premises and who is not a relative of the previous sub-postmaster has no particular claim to the appointment. I made that clear to the Deputy already.
I am not suggesting that he has any particular claim, but I am trying to get a statement from the Minister as to what extra qualifications the successful appointee has over and above other people.
It would be very difficult to answer that question. I have myself appointed scores and scores of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses since June, 1951, and questions have been raised only in relation to seven or eight of these appointments. I have to make the choice. It happens that in this case I happened to make a choice that does not appear to satisfy the Deputy.
Is it not a fact that the post office has been there for years and that the premises were found satisfactory? You went and put it in a farmhouse at the other side of the road. You gave it to a man who has a big farm and who was already employed and put a young married man out of the position.
One fellow was the choice of the Fianna Fáil Club and the other fellow was not.
I shall allow an answer to Deputy O'Leary's question and to no other.
One fellow was the "buck" of the Fianna Fáil Club and the other was not.
That is quite true.
That is the way you did it.
They would have to have the sign and the password for you.
According to the newspaper which supports the Deputy, there was great difficulty in getting the man appointed to vote at all.
May I ask the Minister——
I said that I would allow a reply to Deputy O'Leary's question and to no other.