asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of Mr. James Sweeney, temporary messenger, Department of Industry and Commerce, his original date of employment on State service and the reasons why it is now proposed to retire him; whether he is aware that his service has been and is entirely satisfactory; that during the emergency period he not only gave exemplary service in the L.S.F., but that in respect of meritorious police duty performed by him on the 23rd July, 1944, he was highly commended by the Commissioner and Group Staff and given a special presentation; whether he will state if his domestic circumstances have been inquired into before the proposal was made to retire him, and if in view of his service, his present capacity and his domestic circumstances, steps will be taken to continue his employment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Messenger's Retirement.
Mr. James Sweeney was first employed as a temporary messenger in my Department on 11th January, 1924. I am aware of all the circumstances detailed in the question. Mr. Sweeney's employment was continued for a considerable time after the normal retirement date and the decision to retire him now was taken after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case.
Will the Minister say whether he will reconsider this matter? Does he not consider, apart altogether from the merits of this case, that this is a type of case which does require reconsideration?
I do not think there are any circumstances which would justify reconsideration of the decision. Whatever circumstances would justify exceptional treatment had been already taken into account when his period of service was extended beyond the usual retiring age.
So far as any question of his capacity to serve is concerned, is the Minister aware that he was not only giving effective service in the duties which he was called upon to discharge in the Department but that he was serving in the L.S.F. from 12 o'clock at night until 4 o'clock in the morning and from 8 o'clock at night until 12 midnight? If he is capable of doing work of that particular kind, and doing it in such a meritorious way as to merit particular commendation and a special presentation from his superiors, surely he is capable of doing the particular work allotted to him in the Department? Does the Minister not consider it unfair that a person of his capacity should be obliged to retire at 68 years of age instead of being allowed to serve until 70 years of age when he would be entitled to the old age pension?
The normal retiring age is 65.
Did the Minister give any consideration to the domestic position of this man?
Yes.
Is the position developing that a man who has given service in the National Army, who has given the faithful service that this man gave in a simple way in the Civil Service and who has, furthermore, given very faithful service during the emergency, is to be retired at 68 years of age without any pension of any kind instead of being allowed to serve until the age of 70, when he could draw the old age pension? We seem to be getting into a heartless state.