On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Blowick has given notice to raise thesubject matter of Questions Nos. 70, 71 and 72 on to-day's Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Mayo Post Office Appointment.
At question time to-day, I had three questions tabled to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs relative to the change of the post office in the townland of Tagheen, Claremorris. Perhaps, I should say something, at first, with regard to the history and background of that post office, and as to what led up to the change. The post office had been located on a particular site which was fairly centrally situated. It was most convenient to the people in the area it served in this postal sub-district. It had been located on that site for at least 50 years, if not more. There is a fairly large population in that area, and it served the people living there. The post office there had come to be regarded as the very centre of the place.
Some time ago the owner of the post office and of the adjoining holding of land that went with it, decided for his own private reasons to sell it. It was purchased by a young man who lived near this particular locality. This young man, by the exercise of his brains and brawn, had earned sufficient money to enable him to purchase that particular holding and the post office. In view of the fact that some years ago, during the term of the inter-Party Government, a select committee was set up to select suitable applicants for vacant sub-postmasterships this young man, who had purchased the place, felt sure that the selection committee in regard to a place like this, would not select any person other than himself for the vacancy and that it would not go to all the trouble and expense of changing the post office from the old site.
In due course, the previous postmaster sold the place and tendered his resignation. The duty then devolved on the Minister of appointing a successor. Naturally, everybody in the locality thought that this young man would be appointed. He had purchased the place without any assistance whatever from State sources or from anybody else. He is the son of a small farmer, and by hard work and industryhad earned enough money to make the purchase. He is a young man of excellent character. His family are well known throughout the length and breadth of Mayo, and naturally, everybody felt that he would be selected. The post office was there with all the necessary fittings, telephone facilities and the rest. It was situated practically in the centre of the area which it served. But in fact that did not happen.
A short time after it became known that the former postmaster had resigned, a deputation came to see the Minister. We do not know what took place behind the closed doors in the Minister's office, but at any rate, on that evening, the members of the deputation were able to say, to use their own words, "that the job was in the bag", meaning that the particular applicant whom they were sponsoring was getting the appointment. I am basing this whole matter, first, on the fact that the man who had purchased the post office from the outgoing postmaster was fully qualified for the position, and, secondly, that the old post office was centrally situated, coupled with the fact that there was no need to incur any expense in changing the post office to a new site.
The Minister, in his reply to my question to-day, stated that, "the new sub-post office is situated in the community centre of the rural district close to the church and school". It is reasonably close to the church and school, but I did not put that question to the Minister. The suggestion that I put to the Minister was that the present post office is not centrally situated as regards the area it serves. If the new site is the best one from the community point of view, then, obviously, the old one should long ago have been removed as not being suitably located. That, of course, was not done. Either the Minister was wrong in leaving the old one where it was or in not having it removed long ago to the present site. But he cannot have it both ways. I was foolish enough to think that the Minister, like his predecessor, would allow the selection committee, set up to make such appointments, to do so. It is quiteclear, however, from the words used by the deputation which waited on the Minister, that their tongues outran their wisdom. Immediately they came out from the Minister they gave the whole game away. If the selection committee had been allowed to do their work, and if the appointment had not been made at that particular time, the deputation would not be in a position to boast that they had the job in the bag. I take it, therefore, from their talk, that the Minister gave them an assurance that, regardless of what the selection committee might do, he was going to appoint the person whom they had recommended to him.
There is another aspect of this to which I should like to refer. Lately, we have been hearing a lot of talk about the need for economy in the Civil Service, in public administration and in practically every branch in life. The Taoiseach has told use that we have been living beyond our means. The present Government deem it wise and expedient, as the best means of running the country at the present time, to have an austerity drive, so that if a person happens to have an extra three-penny bit in his pocket, an inspector will probably be paid to snipe it from him. The Minister gave some figures to-day indicating the cost of changing this post office. The new site is on the edge of the area, with the result that the people are being greatly inconvenienced—at least 150 families and their households, to my own personal knowledge. In spite of all this talk from the Government about the need for an austerity drive and for economy in public administration, the Minister is prepared to spend £7 10s. on the removal of the letter-box, including the reinstatement of the old premises. He is prepared to spend £10 11s. on the removal of the telephone, and to incur an additional £20 annual cost in regard to mail conveyance. That is because the new site is situated much farther than the old one from Claremorris, which is the central office where the mails come from. He also told me, in his reply, that there is no loss of revenue in regard to telephone subscribers. Will he tell us whether one telephone subscriber in this area waspaying for his telephone, or had he it free? I am at a loss to know how it is that there will be no loss of income from this particular telephone subscriber. If the Minister's statement is correct, did that subscriber always have the service free?
Will that particular telephone subscriber still have to pay a rental for a phone that does not now exist? Seeing the telephone is under his roof in his own post office, it is quite obvious that he will not have a phone from his own house. I have a telephone and it is costing me almost £50 a year although it is used very little. I presume this telephone will cost about the same. I am not saying that the Minister and his Department are charging me more than any other user, and presume I am only paying at the same rate as every other person who uses a telephone. Possibly this telephone subscriber, because he had a flourishing business, was using-the telephone more than I use mine, and with the amount of the rental and the price of telephone calls and the extra 25 per cent. added recently I presume his bill could not have been much less than £50 a year. Possibly I am safe in saying it was much more than £50 a year, judging by my own. I doubt the accuracy of the Minister's reply to me when he said there was no loss of revenue in regard to telephone subscribers. If the Minister says I am wrong, I will withdraw the remark.
Recently the Minister told us he had need to increase postage charges. The modest 2½d. stamp hitherto required to post a letter was increased to 3d. Telephone and telegraph charges were increased as part of a general plan to economise in Government expenditure. Yet, the Minister takes and moves a phone that has been located for over 50 years at a particular site and he planks it down at the edge of the area it is supposed to serve, with the result that some of the people will now have to travel four miles to transact whatever postal business they have, let it be old age pensions or anything else.
The Minister and his Department are tardy enough in the matter of erectingpillar boxes for the convenience of people in the rural areas. In this particular area he is now putting an additional burden on the people. I have no option but to believe that the selection committee was not allowed to function. If that committee had been allowed to function I do not believe the Department and the Government and the taxpayers would have been put to the expense of moving this post office.
While I have nothing to say as to the qualifications of the present applicant, I would like the Minister to tell us in what way the other applicant failed to measure up. I understand only two in the area applied. I want to make it clear that, if the Minister can give me even one small reason why the person who purchased the old post office site was not considered a fit or suitable person or failed to qualify because of record, education, character or in some other way, I will withdraw every single word I have said and the question I put down also. That is a fair challenge to the Minister.
This has undermined the confidence of the people in the Government. We hear a good deal of empty talk from the Government Benches about the need to maintain law and order and the necessity for inculcating into the people a respect for the laws we make here. When the people find political pull working to such an extent as this, it is very hard to expect the ordinary people, who are indeed very law-abiding, to have any respect for the laws we make here.
What about the £9,000 the Land Commission lost?
We are discussing the Post Office, not the Land Commission.
What about the £2,640 that is lost on every small migrant's holding?
I will not allow irrelevancies.
I am very glad to know that Deputy Flanagan is opposed to the settlement of the relief of congestion.
By spending £16,000 on a farm.
I paid £25,000 for farms and I was proud of it. If I am Minister for Lands to-morrow, I will do the same.
If Deputy Blowick does not keep to the matter under discussion he will have to resume his seat.
The Government professes to believe that economy is necessary and I cannot see why the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should put the taxpayers to the expense of moving this post office. If he can give me one reason why the second applicant, who bought the old post office, was not considered a fit and suitable person, I will withdraw every word I have said. Perhaps the Minister has good reasons of which I am not aware. I am putting my case in the light and in the knowledge of the information that has been submitted to me. Perhaps the Minister has information that I have not got.
I would like to hear the Minister give his reasons for this expenditure. In particular, I would like to know why he overrode the selection committee, as he must have done. No selection could have been made at the time this deputation interviewed the Minister, and I am sure the deputation was not so foolish as to go bragging they had the job in the bag on that particular evening unless they got an assurance from the Minister that he was going to make the appointment they suggested. If the Minister made such a promise to the deputation he clearly was regarding the selection committee as a humbug and he was determined to override it.
I do not think Deputy Blowick has told the whole story. In the first place, he must be aware that this post office was originally located in the village of Cahermore, to which it has now gone back. It was taken out of that village and moved to the site to which Deputy Blowick has referred many years ago, and Deputy Blowick is well aware that over the last 50 years there has been an agitation in the parish to get the post office backto where it was originally and where it now stands.
That is all trash and nonsense.
Deputy Blowick should allow Deputy Moran to make his statement.
Deputy Blowick may describe that as trash——
The Deputy is just trying to bolster up the Minister.
——but I would prefer to accept the evidence that I saw in the case of the present successful applicant, contained in a letter from his parish priest, to the effect that such an agitation had been going on for the past 20 years and recommending that the post office be returned to the place from which it was filched 20, 25 or 30 years ago.
Fifty years ago, long before Deputy Moran or myself troubled this world.
I prefer to accept the evidence of the local clergy rather than Deputy Blowick's word. He is obviously raising the matter with some idea of using it as political propaganda.
Perhaps Deputy Moran would tell us about the reference he made about the people going to Mass in that area.
Deputy Moran must be allowed to make his statement.
It has nothing to do with the question I put down.
He is entitled to speak.
This appointment has given the utmost satisfaction to the people of the parish. They are glad to have the post office back to its original centre, in the centre of the parish and within 10 yards of the local church, where the local people and the local clergy want it.
I think that Deputy Moran has stated the case better than I can. All I have done is to take the advice made available to me and to restore the post office to the parish community centre of the particular district. So long as I hold this position, if there is a rural district of that kind where there is quite clearly a community centre I shall, as far as in me lies, make arrangements that the post office will be in that community centre.
So far as this matter is concerned generally, I am amused at the way in which members of the Opposition apparently try to make some kind of political capital out of the appointments to the Post Office. They cannot do it very often because I have appointed well over 100 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and out of that number they have managed in some way or other to extract a mere handful of two or three with the object of trying to discredit me politically. They will not get away with that. Since June, 1951, I have not had a single complaint of a responsible kind from any person living in any parish where sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses have been appointed. So far as I know, all these persons now working for the Post Office are giving satisfactory service. To my knowledge, not one has been the subject of any serious complaint.
Surely you do not expect us to believe that.
In regard to their suitability and efficiency, there is the extraordinary fact that over 100 have been appointed, and out of that number the Opposition now and then picks a mere handful. The Opposition seems to get aroused for some reason or another and starts making representations here and raising the matter on the Adjournment, trying to discredit me and my work, work which I have every reason to believe, from the comment I hear, I am doing as well as anyone else and at least to the satisfaction of the people in the districts where these post offices are situated.
In what way did the other applicant not qualify?
Deputy Blowick must cease interrupting.
Surely I am entitled to ask a question.
Deputies can go on behaving in that fashion and talking in that way as long as they like. If out of every 100 I appoint they choose to find fault or complain in regard to a mere handful, two or three out of over 100, there is nothing I can do about it. I believe I am doing a fairly good job.
For the Fianna Fáil Party.
In regard to some of the points raised by the Deputy, no one was given any guarantee of appointment before this appointment was made. I have been long enough in political life not to start giving people who happen to come to me guarantees in advance as to whether or not they will have the privilege of working for the Post Office. It would be a very foolish man who would indulge in that kind of thing.
Deputy Blowick spoke as if one of the applicants had purchased the premises where the old post office was with some element of goodwill attaching to the premises. He was a foolish person if he did that, because one of the strictest rules of the Post Office is that premises which formerly held a post office may not be purchased for a sum which includes goodwill. If a person does that, he does it knowing that he is liable not to be selected.
Would the Minister say in what way this person did not qualify?
I have already answered the Deputy in regard to that. The applicant did not qualify because I decided the post office should be put back again into the community centre of the parish. That is no reflection on the character of any of the applicants.
Why did you leave it there for 50 years in the wrong place so? What kind of Minister are you?
The Deputy will please allow the Minister to speak.
The Deputy may interrupt me as much as he likes. His interruptions will not trouble me. I have made it clear that there is nothing against the character of the other applicants so far as I am aware. The post office was simply moved back to the community centre. That is the natural and proper place for it. No matter what representations I receive from Deputies, whether Opposition or Fianna Fáil, I will ensure that in cases of a similar kind the post offices are placed in the community centre.
So far as the cost of moving the post office is concerned, we are accustomed to incurring certain small costs in moving post offices. The cost is very small compared with what has to be incurred on some occasions. We spend such large capital sums in improving postal services and increasing output and efficiency generally that I do not think we need worry about the very small costs involved in this matter.
It would take an awful lot of ½d. stamps to make it up.
So far as the telephone service is concerned, there will be no loss of revenue. There was no telephone call office in the post office originally. There is a telephone in the new post office. It is unlikely that anybody else will take a telephone and we will therefore save the capital cost of putting a telephone in and bringing the wires all the way from the nearest main exchange. The savings on the capital cost will far offset any trifling expenses we have incurred in moving the post office.
What about the conveyance of the mails?
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 31st July, 1953.