asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs what steps, if any, his Department have taken to resolve the dispute regarding the siting of a post office on Lettermore, County Galway.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Galway Post Office.
140.
The sub-post office at Lettermore is sited in a central location and is being used extensively by the local community. Regrettably, however, most telephone subscribers in the area, including a dispensary doctor, are without service as a result of the cutting of wires and poles, and the obstruction and intimidation of the Department's staff sent to transfer the exchange and to effect repairs. Service can be restored without delay on the cessation of such unlawful and antisocial activities.
Those activities are, I presume, what the Deputy has in mind when he refers to a dispute. One of the pretexts put forward for those activities has been that the change of location of the sub-post office was politically motivated. The facts of the case disprove that malicious fabrication. The former sub-postmaster was dismissed in accordance with normal post office practice as a result of his admitted misuse of official funds. The present sub-postmistress was appointed on the recommendation of the departmental selection board which considers all applications for sub-post office appointments. I should like to expand somewhat on that summary statement.
In a check of accounts carried out at Lettermore sub-post office by the head postmaster on 18th May, 1970, a shortage was discovered. It was made good, but, in accordance with practice, the appropriate Departmental authority ordered a surprise check to be made on 16th July, 1970. It, too, revealed a shortage. In the course of a statement to the investigation officer engaged on the check, the sub-postmaster admitted that he had been issuing money orders, without paying for them, to discharge private debts. He made good the shortage. The investigation officer suspended Mr. O'Connor. This was in accordance with the normal practice, and the office was placed in charge of departmental staff.
It is long-standing departmental practice to dismiss sub-postmasters found seriously misusing official funds. Mr. O'Connor was accordingly dismissed.
The vacancy for a sub-postmaster at Lettermore was advertised in September, 1970, and four applications were received. The applications were considered by the standing departmental selection board established to examine applications for appointments as sub-postmaster. The board, on the basis of the normal criteria they apply in these cases, recommended only one of the four applicants for Lettermore, as suitable for appointment, and I accepted that recommendation.
It is not and has never been the practice to discuss in any detail the claims and qualifications of individual candidates for sub-postmasterships.
I should like to comment briefly on other points that have been advanced also in support of the activities which the Deputy referred to as a dispute. So far as the site is concerned, the office serves a fairly large area. The present office is located about half a mile from the previous one and is reasonably central for the whole area served. The fact that a thriving business existed there already is sufficient indication of that.
It has been urged that the new sub-postmistress is in comfortable circumstances and that the appointment should therefore have been given to somebody in greater need of employment. Although for some employments in the Department, such as auxiliary postmen, need is a factor taken into account, that has never been so with sub-postmasterships. Sub-postmasters handle large sums of public money and, in the public interest, the financial standing of applicants has always been an important element in determining the relative suitability of candidates.
The suggestion has also been made that the new premises are unsuitable because there is a public house adjoining the sub-post office. Many sub-post offices are similarly located and there have been no complaints that this is detrimental to the post office or to its customers. In fact, the 1964 Sub-Post Office Commission of Inquiry recommended the removal of a restriction on persons concerned with the ownership or management of a public house becoming sub-postmasters, subject to there being no direct access between the sub-post office and the licensed portion of the premises. That condition is met in the new sub-post office.
These are the facts of the case. I regret to have taken up so much of the time of the House but in view of the extensive publicity which has been given to maliciously false statements about the position, I considered it necessary to present the true facts clearly.
I will repeat that the decisions taken in this case were properly and correctly taken in accordance with normal departmental practice. If the small group who have been fostering this agitation regarding Lettermore believe that by continuing their lawless campaign of intimidation they are going to force a change, they are greatly mistaken.