Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1961

Vol. 186 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Mountmellick Town Commissioners: Non-Delivery of Letter.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

On 16th February, 1961 I addressed the following Question to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs:

To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs why a registered letter from the Department of Local Government dated 23rd December, 1960, and addressed to the Chairman of Mountmellick Town Commissioners c/o Town Hall, Mountmellick, was not delivered; if this registered communication has been traced; and if he will give an explanation concerning it.

The Minister gave a most unsatisfactory reply. He said that the registered letter referred to was posted at the peak of Christmas mail pressure, that it had been established that it was not amongst the registered mails which reached Mountmellick at the material time but that it had not been possible to determine the cause of this failure or to trace the missing item. For the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to give a reply of that kind to a Question asking the whereabouts of a registered letter shows incompetence and inefficiency so far as his Department is concerned.

I put it to you, Sir, that the Department of Local Government, on the instructions of the Minister for Local Government, sent to the Chairman of Mountmellick Town Commissioners by registered post on 23rd December a very important document signed by Mr. P. Maguire, Local Government Auditor and dated 22nd November, 1960. It was an auditor's report dealing with the financial structure of the local authority over which the Chairman presided. It dealt in particular with the presentation of accounts. While the terms of the communication contained in the registered letter are of no concern in this debate, I put it to the House that the document was an urgent and important one and was sent on the instructions of a Minister of State to the Chairman of a local authority.

Why is a letter registered? Is it not in order to ensure safe delivery? It should be all the same to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs whether a letter is registered on Christmas Eve, New Year's Day or Midsummer's Day. A registered letter is paid for and a receipt is obtained for it. It is stamped at the various offices of departure and arrival. For some reason unknown to me but perhaps known to somebody outside this House, the letter did not arrive. The Minister tells us that he received this registered letter on 23rd December at the peak of the Christmas rush but I argue that a packet is registered to ensure delivery. Is it customary for registered letters to go astray? If it is, why should people register letters at all?

The Minister went on to say in his reply on the 16th February that he had made inquiries and that he was satisfied that the letter was posted. The Department of Local Government have a receipt for it. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs got the registered letter. While in transit between Mountmellick and Dublin the letter was lost. Who is responsible for it? I put it to this House that that letter was stolen while it was in the custody of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is the duty of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to ascertain the whereabouts of any registered communication.

I should like to know if this is the only case of a registered letter going astray? This is a case where a State Department handed in an important auditor's report that was awaited by the local authority with suspicion, that was anxiously awaited by the Chairman. It never arrived although it was posted by the Department of Local Government. Does it not give good grounds for grave suspicion? I say that this is a most unusual case.

I put it to the Minister that there were a number of registered letters posted by the Department of Local Government on the same day. Is it not a fact that every other registered letter posted by the Department on that day was delivered? This is the only one that was not delivered. Who in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was responsible for taking this letter out of the postal service and having it destroyed, torn up, burned, and who made sure for certain reasons that it would not reach the Chairman of the local authority to whom it was addressed?

There is a special bag for registered communications. Registered communications are counted and put into the bag which is locked and sealed. There is no excuse whatever for loss. The only way that a registered packet can be mislaid is by being stolen. I put it to the Minister that this registered letter was stolen. The Minister is trying to get out of it by saying that it was the peak of the Christmas rush. Is that any excuse for registered letter going astray? If a registered letter went astray how many unregistered packets would be liable to go astray? This was a registered letter from one State Department to another State Department. The Department of Local Government placed it in the hands of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for safe custody, to ensure proper delivery. They got a receipt for it. It never reached its destination. I want to know what inquiries the Minister has made in regard to this matter. He admits that it was not delivered, that it cannot be traced and that it is not possible to determine the cause of the failure or to trace the missing item.

If all the officers of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were alerted, if they were minding their business, if they were seeing to it that registered letters reached their destination, certainly they would have ensured safe delivery of this important and urgent communication from a local government auditor sent on the instructions of a Minister.

What makes me suspicious is the fact that this was the only registered packet that, to the knowledge of the Department of Local Government or of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, was missing. I put it to the Minister that it was stolen. I warn the Minister to be more alert in cases of this kind. He cannot tell us whether the letter arrived at Portlaoise or not. I feel that the letter did not arrive at Portlaoise because if the letter had arrived at Portlaoise there would be a record of it and the Portlaoise stamp would be on it or at least the registered mail bag would have arrived at Portlaoise.

We are quite satisfied that it was posted. The Department of Local Government have a receipt for it. It was only one of many registered letters sent on that day and the letter that contained serious allegations about the finances of the local authority was the only one that went astray. It was bad work on the part of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It was failure on the part of the Minister's Department. It means that registration no longer gives a guarantee of delivery. If the Department of Posts and Telegraphs allow registered packets to be stolen while in their custody, the Department are falling down on their job. The Department should not have allowed themselves to be used as pawns and tools to prevent the contents of the documents in question from getting into the hands of a man to whom it was addressed and who required it.

The occasion has presented itself to say that on all similar occasions registered communications from the Department of Local Government were always received when addressed to the chairman of local authorities in the various districts. I ask the Minister to give us a clear explanation, if there is a guarantee of safe delivery for registered communications, why this communication was not delivered safely. People are encouraged to register parcels and other mail in the interests of safe delivery. There is a higher fee charged for this service. The Department of Local Government have done their job in the best interests of the local authority in registering this letter on 24th December. Assuming that the Christmas pressure was there, it would not have been difficult to have it delivered on 27th or 28th December. I put it to the Minister that because of the contents of the communication, it was deliberately stolen from the Department's offices.

What guarantees has the public, if there is a reason for stealing a document within the Post Office service, that it will not be done? I raise this matter in the proper spirit and in the hope that there will be no recurrence of this incident. If we are to have confidence in the registration of packets and letters, there should be some guarantee given by the Minister that they will not be stolen or lost in the post. I charge the Department of Posts and Telegraphs with grave negligence and with failing in their duty. They undertake responsibility for safe delivery and that has not taken place in this case nor has the Minister given us a satisfactory explanation.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Hilliard)

On 16th February, this question was put to me by Deputy Flanagan. I gave him the only answer I could give to the question he put and I feel I am not called upon to give any further answer than I have already given. The Deputy has quoted the answer I gave him on that date and in answer to a supplementary question I said:

We cannot say whether it arrived in Portlaoise or not, but we do know it did not arrive in Mountmellick. There were 18,000 registered items in the registered enclosure in Pearse Street that day. Seventy-nine registered items were sent from Dublin to Portlaoise. When the number of registered items is large, there is not an individual record on the bill sent with the items. Only the number of items is recorded on the bill. Between Portlaoise and Mountmellick 14 items were for forwarding. They were recorded individually on the bill, but there is no record of this item on the bill.

Deputy Flanagan purports to know what was in this letter. He said it contained—

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The auditor's report.

Mr. Hilliard

——the auditor's report on the affairs of the Mountmellick Commissioners. Since this matter was raised with me and since the Mountmellick Town Commissioners were brought into the matter, I made inquiries from the Department of Local Government and I found this registered letter contained only a copy of the auditor's report——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is all I said it was.

Mr. Hilliard

——and not the report itself. The copy is sent by the Minister for Local Government to the Chairman of the Town Commissioners as a matter of courtesy and the document itself, the auditor's report, was sent in the ordinary way to the clerk of the Town Commissioners. The clerk opened it and it was read to the Town Commissioners at the next meeting. It appears that on 16th February, Deputy Flanagan, in a supplementary question put to me, was inferring that this registered document was read at the meeting of the Town Commissioners. That was not so.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I did not say it was.

Mr. Hilliard

I will quote what the Deputy said:

Is the Minister aware that when this document was under discussion—

and he was talking about the document in this registered letter

—at the meeting of the Town Commissioners the County Manager referred to this document, which apparently never reached Mountmellick, as having been read by the Town Clerk to the Town Commissioners.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The County Manager did. I did not.

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy said he said it. The Deputy is making charges of incompetence against the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and he is alleging they are pawns and tools in this game and that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as a Department assisted in the extraction of this letter which was sent in and registered on the relevant date. I want to tell the Deputy, the House and the public that no postal service or postal authority gives a guarantee that every registered letter will get safe delivery. No postal authority could give that guarantee. We do not give it. There is a loss in registered packages of one in 40,000 packages and the fee itself carries with it a certain percentage to cover insurance against loss so that the Department will be able to pay when loss occurs.

I can give the Deputy an outline as to how the registration system works. A special registration number is assigned to every packet accepted in the service. Originally, it was the practice to keep an individual record of every movement of a registered letter during its treatment in the post. A counter clerk would itemise on a bill the registration number of every packet dispatched to his sorting office; within the sorting office, registration numbers would likewise be scrupulously listed at every transfer by the clerks working in the registered enclosure; when dispatches were made up for transmission to other offices, the bills would show the registration number of each packet; and the same process would be continued right down to the final stage of receipt at the delivery office.

This procedure left little scope for loss of registered items, though in fact some losses did occur, but it was so inordinately costly that it was decided about 30 years ago to modify it in this way: (1) where the traffic is great, transfers of large numbers of registered items would be advised by showing the total number of the registered packets concerned, the individual registration particulars not being listed, but (2) where the traffic is low, the registration numbers would continue to be itemised.

Under that system, the registered letters left Dublin on the day in question. Seventy-nine of them were sent from Dublin to Portlaoise. In the dispatch from Portlaoise to Mountmellick, this particular registered item was not among the registered letters. The Department made inquiries in regard to the missing letter.

The Department has an Investigation Branch and whenever it comes to notice that a letter is missing or that letters are being interfered with or any misdemeanour is taking place in any part of the service, or in any post office, the Investigation Branch proceeds to investigate. Thank God, the incidence of these offences is very low in comparison with the number working in the Post Office service. Our Post Office service is staffed by people, the very great majority of whom, I am satisfied, are perfectly honest in all their dealings with the Post Office and the public.

If a person is found guilty of interfering with the post or taking money, or committing any criminal offence of that nature, the investigation officers have such persons charged, whenever the solicitor to the Post Office says that a charge can be sustained. These matters are of course always referred to the Minister and in cases where the Minister can dismiss the person concerned, dismissal takes place. In cases where the Minister has not authority to dismiss—in the case of a civil servant, he must go to the Government—a submission is made to the Government for authority to dismiss such a person.

That has been the practice in the Post Office over the years and it still continues. All I can say is that every care is taken with letters entrusted to the Post Office and to see that each letter of the millions received is delivered to the address for which the writer intended it.

Our Post Office service is efficient in comparison with any post office in the world. It is more efficient and gives better service in delivering items entrusted to it than most postal services in the world.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 1st March, 1961.