Last Thursday I asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs "if a new subpostmaster has been appointed to Drumcondra Road subpostoffice and, if so, if he will state the name of the person appointed, his age and qualifications; whether suitable premises are available; if so, where; whether the present acting sub-postmistress applied for the position; and, if so, why she was not appointed."
The Minister replied that Mr. Thomas F. Gray had been appointed; he had "offered suitable premises in Lower Drumcondra Road near the present suboffice which he expected to be able to provide. It now transpires that he is unable to provide these premises and he is endeavouring to secure alternative premises in the area."
I accuse the Minister of having engaged in political patronage in this appointment. I accuse him of having perpetrated a grave act of injustice. He has appointed this gentleman, the chairman of the Fianna Fáil executive in the adjoining constituency of Dublin North Central, a man, who, two years ago, was co-opted as a Fianna Fáil member of the Dublin City Council.
I would refer the Minister now to a form with which he ought to be familiar, Form M.P. 188 of his Department. That is the official form of application upon which applicants are required to furnish their personal particulars when applying for positions as subpostmasters or subpostmistresses. This form has emblazoned across the top the following admonishment: "Political influence must not be sought in support of this application. The appointment is made solely with a view to the efficiency of the service and on an impartial comparison of the qualifications of the candidates." It is furthermore my information—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; I invite him to do so—that there is in the rules of the post office service a specific prohibition on participation by subpostmasters in any political activity. Form M.P. 188 refers to an impartial comparison of the qualifications of the candidates. Such a comparison has not been made in this case. The facts are irrefutable and can be neither denied nor contradicted.
Mr. Gray, the Minister informed me, is 64 years of age. He is, in fact, a retired official of Dublin Corporation. He, I presume, like other retired corporation officials, enjoys a retirement pension. The person who is at present acting as subpostmistress is a Miss K. Farrell. She is in her early thirties. She has worked in this office for the past eight years under two subpostmistresses; first, under Miss Haslam and subsequently under Mrs. Dooly, who was appointed five years ago. In actual fact, for the past five years, Miss Farrell has done most of the work in this subpostoffice. She is highly experienced, highly thought of in the area and well liked by the customers. When Mrs. Dooly retired four or five months ago, Miss Farrell was appointed acting subpostmistress in her place. She bought the goodwill of the little tobacconist's shop which is run in these premises. She enjoys a tenancy of the premises.
It is the invarible practice to require applicants for these posts to set out on Form M.P. 188 the premises in which they propose to operate the post office. They are required to go into considerable detail in regard to the terms of their tenancy and related technical matters. Mr. Gray is now in the position that he has no premises available and my information is that he will find it extremely difficult to get a premises. Many of the shopkeepers in the area who were contemplating applying for the post did not do so in deference to Miss Farrell's application. I am told, indeed, that at least one applicant withdrew his application when he learned what the position was.
There is acute indignation in the area because of what has happened. The whole thing is extremely unfortunate. I have no wish to detain the House or the Minister in discussing this small but by no means unimportant matter. When this State was set up 45 years ago, one of the first acts was to set up the Appointments Commission, of which, I think, you, Sir, are chairman. This body was appointed for the purpose of ensuring that public positions are filled by those best qualified to discharge the duties of the particular office for the purpose of removing all taint of patronage from appointments to the Civil Service and the public services generally.
To suggest that a 64 year old man —I should be interested to know if his birth certificate was, in fact, inspected by the Department—a man enjoying a retirement pension is suitably qualified to discharge the duties of a subpostoffice adequately is patently absurd. To suggest he is better qualified than the young lady with eight years' experience of the work borders on the ludicrous. It is clear now that an impartial comparison of the candidates was not, in fact, made. Again, I accuse the Minister of exercising political patronage for the benefit of this member of his political Party. I invite the Minister to state whether or not there is in the rules of the Post Office a specific prohibition against participation in politics and, further, to tell us if Mr. Gray is, in fact, going to resign from the Fianna Fáil Party. He has taken the bite out of the mouth of this decent little woman, this man who enjoys at least one public pension and maybe two. The Minister is perpetrating an act of injustice.
I do not know that there is an awful lot more to say about it, except perhaps, that this sort of thing has happened before. Several years ago there was the notorious so-called Battle of Baltinglass—and in fairness, let it be said that neither the Minister nor his Party was in office at the time —about the schemozzle of the subpostmistress in Baltinglass. That was an act of injustice, as is this.
It is time we rose above this form of political patronage, which is a festering sore in the political life of this country. It is the sort of thing which makes people cynical about politics and politicians. It is the sort of action which brings discredit to all of us and I implore the Minister to set a new tone in the affairs of his Department. If he does so, he will rid himself, and all his successors, of bally-ragging and string-pulling in these petty public appointments; string-pulling to which Ministers of State ought not be subject.
I recall ten or 12 years ago the case of a very decent man who was a member of Dublin Corporation in the labour interest, Walter Breathnach. He was a postman and he was given the choice by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of giving up his job as a postman or resigning from the corporation. He gave up his job as a postman.
It is a long standing tradition in the public service in this country, at Civil Service level, that participation in politics is taboo. It is a good tradition and one which should be adhered to on every side of public administration. In this year of grace, 1966, when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Rising, it ill becomes the Minister to suggest that because this man holds a military service medal— presumably for old IRA service—he is, therefore, entitled to preference over this decent little woman whose livelihood is being taken from her. It is not the sort of thing for which the IRA came out and fought 50 years ago. They would be the first to disown the Minister's action.
I want to know from the Minister has Mr. Gray yet furnished the address of a suitable premises. It is a fact that persons appointed to these positions are required to make their premises available and I understand it is quite without precedent for a Department of State to lean over backwards and give a person extended time to furnish a premises. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will succeed in doing something he did not succeed in doing last week, that is, avoid personalities. I am sorry that none of my colleagues from North-East Dublin is here tonight. I regard the absence of the Government Deputies for my constituency as their repudiation of the Minister's action.
There is little more for me to say on the matter, except, once more, to renew my plea of a few moments ago, and quietly and dispassionately, to urge the Minister—whom we all respect—to bring a new look to bear on the affairs of his Department and, in this year of grace, to implement the noble theory of the Proclamation of 1916—"To cherish all the children of the nation equally". That is not being done in this case. I could say that with much greater passion and more vehemently but I am deliberately restraining myself to say these things quietly to the Minister in the hope that some constructive good will come of this development, to appeal to him, even at this late stage, to rectify the injustice he has perpetrated, and to warn him that this is not the end of the affair.
I should be grateful, Sir, if you would facilitate my colleague, Deputy Ryan, for the remaining time.
