asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he is aware of the inadequate and unsatisfactory accommodation at Claremorris Post Office; if he will indicate what steps it is proposed to take to improve the accommodation; and when it is anticipated that the necessary improvements will be carried out.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Claremorris Post Office.
I am aware of the need for an improvement of the post office accommodation at Claremorris and the matter has been receiving special consideration. The scheme originally contemplated has been materially affected by the plans for general telephone development in the area, which include the provision of a new auto-manual exchange. I am not at present in a position to say when building operations can commence, but the matter will be expedited as much as possible.
Would the Minister say whether the Post Office has acquired a site for this constructional work?
There is a site already which was quite adequate for our needs up to about half-way through the emergency, but as there was a great deal of development in telephones and the demand for them increased, the present buildings have become inadequate. I have the matter under very active consideration lately. The officers were to have been down on the site during the last month, but owing to the weather conditions that was not possible. They are to go down to investigate the whole problem at once.
Has the Post Office acquired the site on which the Minister proposes to rear this structure?
The position is, that in 1938 we entered into an agreement on the basis of paying a rent. The rent was reasonable and the premises were quite adequate for the purpose then. Now the question is whether we have to take an entirely new site or whether we can take another site beside the present building. What I am a little afraid of is that these questions may mean that we will be held up to ransom and have to pay too big a price.
I am afraid that, if the matter is going to be dealt with in the easy-going way which manifested itself during the last 12 years, the Minister will lose the site entirely. Is it correct to say that this site was offered to the Post Office Department for £1,100 in 1935, and that due to haggling over £200, it is still in the possession of the owner, who now wants for it a much greater sum than he was prepared to sell it for in 1935? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that, on this occasion, the matter is not handled in that unsatisfactory way? The site was then lost to the Post Office, and can only be obtained now by paying a substantially higher price than would have had to be paid if the Post Office and the Board of Works had acted with normal alacrity in 1935.
The Deputy is entirely wrong. I may add that his remarks are not going to make it easy for us to get a site at a reasonable figure. The position is that the agreement which was made in 1938 was adequate for our needs in 1938, and as far as could be foreseen for our future needs. It was only during the emergency that it became more and more apparent that the accommodation was inadequate. The rent actually paid, as an alternative to buying out the site at £1,100, was £80 a year, plus rates. We took it on that favourable basis, and it would have been perfectly satisfactory except for the unanticipated development of telephone demand. Now, we have to go out and look for a site. I am sorry to have to say that the fact that the Deputy is pressing these questions will not make it easier for us to get a site.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that everybody in Claremorris knows this except for the Minister? He is still apparently living in the clouds. Will the Minister now deny that because the Post Office failed to buy this site at £1,100, instead of £900, they have had to pay £80 a year —for a difference of £200—over the past 12 years, and does he regard that as good business?
As a matter of fact, I do not think that is accurate. We now want more land than we would have got at that time. The alternative, as I said before—perhaps I may repeat myself as the Deputy has repeated himself three times—to buying the site was to take it at a rent which we thought was reasonable and fair—£80 a year, plus £29 in rates.