Deputy Casey today gave notice that, on the Motion for the Adjournment, he would raise the subject matter of Questions Nos. 77 and 78 on the Order Paper for Thursday, 9th February, 1961. The Chair does not usually allow two issues to be raised at the one time. In this case the two matters might very well have been put in the same Question.
Adjournment Debate. - Appointment of Cork Subpostmasters.
On Thursday last, I addressed to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs two questions relative to two appointments of subpostmasters which were recently made in the city of Cork. In the first question, I asked him the name of the successful applicant for the position as subpostmaster at Capwell post office; whether this person had been interviewed a short time previously with a number of others, and had been found unsuitable; and if he would state the qualifications in which the candidate was originally found to be lacking but is now deemed to possess.
The Minister, in his reply, said:
Mrs. Brigid Butler was the successful applicant and was considered suitable when the vacancy was first advertised.
I addressed to the Minister a number of Supplementary Questions but failed to elicit the information I thought I was entitled to.
In the second case, I asked the Minister the name of the person appointed to the vacant post of subpostmaster at Bandon Road, Cork, and his qualifications for the position. The Minister informed me:
Mrs. Eileen Lucey was appointed as subpostmistress at Bandon Road, Cork. It would be contrary to established practice to state the qualifications of any of the applicants for the appointment.
Again, in endeavouring to elicit further information, I asked a number of Supplementary Questions but the replies were so unsatisfactory that I was constrained to raise the matter on the Adjournment to-night.
First of all, I should like to say that I have nothing personal against the two applicants who succeeded in being appointed. I have absolutely no interest in any of the candidates for any of the posts and, indeed, I did not know of the vacancies until the appointments were made. I do not mind saying also that I have no personal animosity against the Minister in raising this matter. I am quite sure that if all the information were at his disposal, he would not wittingly have made these two appointments.
In many ways, he is the victim of the system which he inherited—a system which, to my mind, is most unsatisfactory in operation and is open to abuse and which quite often, as in these two cases, produces an unjust and unfair result. It seems clear to me also from the manner in which the Minister replied to Supplementary Questions that he appears to be misinformed before he made his replies.
Taking first the appointment for the Capwell sub-post office, the vacancy there arose on the death of the former postmistress. In accordance with practice, the post was advertised locally and the applicants were interviewed. The Minister told us in reply to a question last week that the main qualifications taken into account in the selection of candidates for appointments as subpostmasters included suitability of applicant, suitability of premises offered and the financial stability of the applicant. Having interviewed all the applicants who applied on this occasion, no one was appointed. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to assume from that that each one of them was deemed to be unsuitable or was found to be deficient in some way and, therefore, could not be appointed. So far, so good.
That is not so and I told the Deputy that the last time.
At any rate, the post was readvertised.
That is right.
I can only gather from the fact that no one was appointed after the first group of applicants were interviewed that all were found to be deficient in some way.
That is not so.
It was readvertised. Amongst the applicants on the second occasion was a person who was an original applicant—the person who was ultimately appointed was also among the second set of applicants— and who was already a subpostmaster who had given long years of satisfactory service to the Department in his capacity as subpostmaster. I take it that there is no need for me to make the case as to his suitability in every respect but he did not succeed in getting it, but a person who was deemed unsuitable a short time previously for the same post secured the appointment.
I stated that that person was not found unsuitable on the first occasion.
Would the Minister listen carefully to this particular aspect?
I am listening. The Deputy should not repeat a misstatement. It may appear to him that the position is as he says. I do not want to interrupt the Deputy.
The man to whom I refer, who was already a subpostmaster, was not interviewed arising out of his application for the Capwell post office. In that connection, I should like the Minister to clear up a statement he made on the last day. He said there were five applicants for the post of subpostmaster in Capwell; four were interviewed; the fifth had been interviewed shortly before in connection with a previous application. The Minister is obviously misinformed because that statement is untrue. The applicant who was already in the service was not interviewed for the Capwell post office and was not interviewed shortly before in connection with a previous application because he had no previous application in.
That is news to me.
I am sure the Minister did not wish to mislead me and the House when he said what was, in fact, untrue in reply to a Supplementary Question the last day. At any rate, the person who failed at the first hurdle was appointed on her second application. I think I am entitled to know from the Minister what qualifications she was deemed to possess on the second occasion in which she was apparently deficient on the first occasion.
I am going to suggest to the Minister that the appointment was made in spite of the fact that the lady in question was lacking in what the Minister informed the House was one of the main qualifications—suitability of premises—because I can say emphatically that, when she secured the appointment, she had no premises and I challenge the Minister to say that is not correct.
I think the injustice is even more glaring in connection with the Bandon Road sub-postoffice. In this connection, we can easily assess the qualifications of the successful candidate and set them against the qualifications of the other applicant who had been an assistant to the former subpostmistress. On the first score, there can be no question amongst either candidate as to their financial stability. I think it can be said that they were both financially sound. There can be no question as to the suitability of either premises which were offered by the two candidates.
The person who succeeded in getting the post had purchased the old premises. The clerical assistant secured a spacious shop in the immediate vicinity and in the same street as the old post office. It was indeed a very fine premises with a fine plate glass window, a good counter, excellent shelving and, if anything, could be deemed to be a more suitable premises for a post office than the former building. Therefore, to my mind, the decision rested on the suitability of the candidates. I am quite sure that both candidates were excellent citizens and the integrity of either of them could not be questioned.
You had here a lady candidate with 28 years' experience in all branches of sub-post office work. Her former employer and other subpostmasters prior to that always spoke very highly of her and never once was her work questioned. She had that vast experience to claim as a qualification, all other things being equal; that vast experience and good record to put forward against the other applicant who had no experience, good, bad or indifferent, in post office work of any kind.
That briefly is the case to be made against these two appointments. I want to say that it is no pleasure for me to raise matters like this on the Adjournment but, when you have a system where you can get two such unjust results, I think I am justified in asking the Minister to carry out a full inquiry into the matter. He would be justified in having that inquiry. I am quite satisfied he would not willingly perpetrate an injustice himself but he owes it to himself and to the House to pinpoint at what level the skulduggery occurred in these two instances. If the Minister thinks that the present system is satisfactory—a system that can throw up two problems such as this— he is only "kidding" himself, the public and the unfortunate applicants whom he invites to apply for these appointments, when obviously there is some other criterion applied when the appointments are to be made.
Outside of these cases at all, I think he should look at the system which, as I say, he inherited. I claim it is open to abuse through political pressure, to personal animosities and local prejudices. I do not claim to have the solution to it. I have not addressed my mind so carefully to it but I would ask the Minister to have a look at the system because I am quite certain it can be improved. The system is totally inadequate and totally unfair. I claim that there is an unanswerable case to be met in the manner in which these appointments were made and I hope the Minister will pinpoint where the skulduggery occurred in each of these cases.
My intervention in this debate will be only for a minute. I should like the Minister when he is replying to explain why it was that at Ballinacurra, Midleton, County Cork, a person with 18 years' experience of post office work, with suitable premises——
Does this relate to either of these two cases?
No, but it happens to be in County Cork.
I cannot allow any matter to be raised except what is in the two questions.
I do not think it any harm whatever to have a question like this raised on the Adjournment and to have Deputies inquire into appointments such as the appointments under discussion in these two questions. It is all very well to look in through a window from the outside. When one does, the situation may appear to be a bit coloured, but when you have to deal with a situation as you find it in the file, it is altogether a different matter. Deputy Casey did not take my word that the successful applicant for the Capwell office was found to be suitable when she made her first application. He seems to think that the people who applied on the first occasion for this office were deemed by the Board to be unsuitable for appointment and that that was the reason the office was advertised a second time.
I told Deputy Casey last week in reply to his Supplementary Question that that was not so. He did not ask me the question why the office was re-advertised but the decision to re-advertise this vacancy was not made by me. The decision was made by the Subpostmasters Board who made that decision when the applications were referred to the Board by the appointments section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It was decided to re-advertise the Capwell vacancy when it was found there had been a misunderstanding in regard to an application.
When the office was re-advertised it brought in two new applicants, one a person who has been referred to here by Deputy Casey but not named by him. He referred to him as a man appointed subpostmaster in 1938 by a Fianna Fáil Minister. His brother who had died at that time and created the vacancy was also appointed by a Fianna Fáil Minister two years previously or so. On this occasion this particular person applied for the Capwell office and applied for it on the understanding that he would transfer into the Capwell office from the one he occupied since 1938.
When he made his application he also suggested that his sister should get the office he was vacating. I am surprised at Deputy Casey or anybody else coming in here and raising this question on a sort of take-over bid of sub-post offices in the city of Cork by any person. The person appointed to this office had post office experience. She was the assistant in the office and she was appointed by the Board. She was recommended——
I did not say that lady had not any experience.
She was recommended to me by the Board. She was found by the Board to be suitable, found suitable on the first occasion and found suitable on the second occasion. She was found suitable on condition that she would provide suitable premises. It is common practice with this Board when a person offers a premises tentatively, having an option on the premises but not having completed purchase or renting, to add that condition. When this person was appointed and went to take over the premises on which she had an option, she discovered that she would be charged through the nose for the goodwill in addition to the amount she had contracted to pay for the premises. Then she offered the post office premises itself which she had rented and the Selection Board reported to me that the post office premises were suitable and that the applicant was suitable and I appointed her.
I could have appointed the person about whom Deputy Casey spoke. He was found suitable also. The position is that the Board makes recommendations. I am confined to the recommendations. Sometimes I have an option to take one of two or three; on other occasions, I have no option. On this occasion I had an option and I appointed the person I thought best fitted to fill the post.
I thought I was doing the right and proper thing in appointing Mrs. Butler to this office and I have no apology to make for the appointment. I was perfectly justified in making the appointment. Mrs. Butler had been for 17 years an assistant in the office at Capwell. Deputy Casey is badly briefed in this case. The office was filled in a proper manner. The Board made its recommendation to me and I sanctioned the appointment. When there are two applicants, when you sanction an appointment you are sanctioning a disappointment for the person who does not get the appointment. That is what happened in this case.
In the other case, the Bandon Road post office, I appointed the people who purchased the office. The position is that these were public appointments advertised publicly. Each person who applies is reported upon by the local Head Postmaster. The reports come into the Appointments Branch. The Appointments Branch have a look at them and they are passed on to the Subpostmasters Board and the Board makes its recommendations to me. I do not consult the Board; I do not sit down with the Board; I do not advise the Board. I have never done so since I went into this office. There is nothing written into the regulations which compels the Board to appoint an assistant of any number of years service in a sub-postoffice. The appointments are open to the public. There is no such thing as persons being qualified. What happens is that the Board examines each applicant's case and reports that such a person is suitable under the heads I enumerated on the last day —suitability of premises, suitability in relation to financial standing and personal suitability.
In the other case it may appear to be a hardship on a person who was an assistant not to get the office. I am accepting responsibility for that. It is a public appointment and I appointed the people I thought best fitted to fill the office. It is common practice to give sub-postoffices to people who have no previous experience whatsoever of post office work and many of them make fine sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses, as the case may be.
As far as the allegation of skulduggery is concerned, Deputy Casey is making that allegation unknowingly, probably, against some post office officials. He is not making it against me. I do not think it fair that post office officials who are working according to terms of reference laid down for them by orders made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or any other Minister of any Department, should be charged with skulduggery when they are carrying out the system as they find it. I am not going to comment at this stage on the system. It is not included in the question.
Is the Minister satisfied with the system?
I have not said that I am satisfied or dissatisfied with the system. When the suitable time comes, I shall make a statement on that aspect of the matter that has been raised here now by Deputy Casey.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16th February, 1961.