I move the Dáil do now adjourn.
In Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Dismissal of a Customs Watcher.
On that motion I wish to raise a matter arising out of the question that I put to the Minister for Finance to-day. I am quite willing to leave the matter over unless it is convenient for the Minister for Finance to attend. I would like to know if any other Minister is prepared to answer the question raised. Is the President prepared to explain the cause of the delay in answering letters addressed to the Department of Finance?
The Deputy did not ask that question to-day.
I gave notice to raise the subject matter of Question 4 on to-day's Order Paper, on the adjournment to-night.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
As the Minister for Finance has now come into the House, I wish to say that on February 25th I addressed a letter to the Minister for Finance drawing his attention to the dismissal of a Customs watcher named Collins, and I received no reply until the 22nd March. I think it is only reasonable to assume that that reply was only forthcoming after I had addressed this question to the Minister, and handed it in here last Thursday. I want to ask the Minister for Finance if he considers that it is fair treatment to a member of this House to leave a letter from him unanswered from the 25th February to the 22nd March. I asked the Minister in that letter if he had received a registered letter from this man Collins, in which he enclosed a detailed statement, giving full particulars dealing with his dismissal and the incidents which led up to it. The Minister has omitted to mention that he received that letter which was sent to him on the 20th December last, by registered post. I am not going to go into details of this man's case. At the moment, I am primarily concerned with the attitude of the Minister's Department in dealing with this correspondence. Secondly, I want to inform the Minister that I have certain information in connection with this case, and to ask him if I supply him with information, which, in my opinion, warrants a reconsideration of this case, will he be prepared to reconsider it? This man is prepared to give evidence on oath contradicting statements which are alleged against him; I would like if the Minister would indicate if he is prepared to reconsider the matter if there is any new evidence forthcoming, and if he has considered the contents of the registered letter sent him in December last, and what are his views upon the matter?
I think that unless Deputies have some ground, and very strong ground, they do no good by butting in in a case, where, owing to a public official not having discharged his duties properly, he has to be dismissed. It does no good either to the man or to the public service. With regard to this particular case I may say it is a general rule that if there is fresh evidence about anything that has been done it will be considered. But I do not think there is the slightest chance of this man being reinstated. Whatever may be the fact about the charges which he denies, he, in his own statement, admits his refusal to carry out an instruction given him by his superior officer. That in itself, apart from anything else, would be sufficient ground for his dismissal so that I do not think any fresh evidence, even if it were considered, could have the slightest effect on the case.
Would the Minister deal with the point which I said was of primary importance to me: why the letter addressed to him on the 25th February was only acknowledged on the 22nd March and was then only acknowledged when a question was handed in here? Why was the letter not acknowledged? I think it is unreasonable for the Minister to presume to lecture me for raising this matter in the House when there was no other alternative. His Department refused to reply to my letter. What other avenue of approach had I?
If I had seen the letter I am not sure I would have it replied to at all.
That is very courteous.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. to 3.30 to-morrow, Thursday, 27th March.