asked the Taoiseach whether he has seen the statement issued by Mr. D.J. O'Donovan and published in the Press with regard to his dismissal from the office of secretary to the Department of Social Welfare and whether he will make a statement to the Dáil on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Department Secretary's Dismissal.
Mr. de Valera
I have seen the statement to which the Deputy refers.
Mr. O'Donovan was removed from the office of secretary of the Department of Social Welfare for persistent failure to obey instructions properly given to him. These instructions were given to him by the Minister for Social Welfare twice on the 11th January, 1951, and again on the 6th February. They were given to him by me on the 3rd February and again on the 10th February. Finally, the directions were given by the Government as a whole and conveyed to Mr. O'Donovan by me on the 12th February. It was not until Mr. O'Donovan had made his persistence in his attitude clear, in his reply to the directions from the Government as a whole, that the Government decided, later on the 12th February, that his removal from office was unavoidable.
This matter had its origin in a question raised by Mr. O'Donovan in regard to an officer of the Department of Social Welfare, towards whom, in Mr. O'Donovan's view, disciplinary action required to be considered. Having previously submitted a report to the Minister for Social Welfare on the circumstances concerning this officer, Mr. O'Donovan, on the evening of Tuesday, the 9th January, 1951, mentioned to the Minister the desirability of an early discussion of the officer's position. The Minister agreed to have such a discussion. During the remainder of that evening and on the 10th and 11th January, the Minister was fully occupied in attending to official business of the highest importance, and for most of that time he was in constant consultation, on that business, with me and other members of the Government. Among the matters engaging his attention were the strike of the bank officials and the discussions with representatives of the Government of the Six Counties on the future of the Great Northern Railway. Being preoccupied with these important matters, the Minister was unable to find time to discuss with Mr. O'Donovan the matter which concerned the officer to whom I have referred.
On Thursday, the 11th January, Mr. O'Donovan wrote informing his Minister that he proposed to suspend the officer concerned from duty and pay and, immediately, without waiting further for his Minister's decision, he proceeded to take this action with effect from the following day. On receipt of Mr. O'Donovan's notification, the Minister at once directed Mr. O'Donovan, in writing, that the officer should not be suspended, and on the same day—that is, on the 11th January, the day proceeding the effective date of the suspension—Mr. O'Donovan replied in terms implying that he was not prepared to accept this direction. The Minister then repeated—again on the 11th January—his direction in writing. This direction was, likewise, ignored.
On his return, on the 26th January, from an absence due to illness, Mr. O'Donovan again wrote to the Minister, intimating, in effect, his adherence to his attitude of declining to accept the Minister's direction in regard to the suspension of the officer concerned. On Saturday, the 3rd February, the Minister informed me of the position and handed me the relevant papers, which I read. I then addressed to Mr. O'Donovan a letter in the following terms:
"The Tánaiste has submitted to me the file relating to directions which he recently gave you in reference to the suspension of an officer of the Department of Social Welfare and with which you have declined to comply. It is your right and duty to make proper submissions to the Minister within the scope of your functions, but having done so, it is your clear duty loyally to obey directions of the Minister and to carry his decisions into effect promptly and without question. I now formally direct that you give immediate effect to his decision in this particular case and to do so in all future matters affecting the administration of his Department."
I received from Mr. O'Donovan a letter dated the 6th February which I could interpret only as a refusal to comply with the directions contained in my letter of the 3rd February.
On the 6th February, the Tánaiste addressed a minute to Mr. O'Donovan instructing him to arrange for the immediate payment of the full salary for January of the officer concerned. Mr. O'Donovan, in a minute of the same date, stated conditions on which he was prepared to pay the salary, but evaded the main issue, namely, whether or not he was prepared to accept the Minister's directions and those contained in my letter of the 3rd February.
During the following days, the secretary of the Department of Finance and the secretary to the Government, with my approval, had a number of informal conversations with Mr. O'Donovan, in which they endeavoured to impress on him that the Government would be obliged to take the gravest view of failure on his part to carry out the directions which had been given to him. In those conversations, it was also clearly stated to Mr. O'Donovan that there is not inherent in the secretary of a Department any power or authority which would enable him to override his Minister's directions, even on financial and staff matters and that, even as accounting officer, the secretary of a Department must accept directions from his Minister where the Minister overrules his advice. Mr. O'Donovan was informed that both the Tánaiste and I were anxious that a collision on this matter should be avoided but that, at the same time, we wished that the unquestionable principle of ministerial authority and responsibility should be preserved. He was urged to comply with the directions given to him, that is, to remove the suspension of the officer concerned and to give directions for the payment of the balance of the officer's salary for January, which had been withheld, and it was pointed out to him that the way would then be clear for consideration of the matters affecting the officer which he had raised.
I addressed a further letter to Mr. O'Donovan on Saturday, the 10th February, in which I repeated the previous directions in the most precise terms and asked for an immediate unequivocal reply. In this letter, I said:—
"I interpret your letter of the 6th instant to me as being a refusal to comply with the directions contained in my letter of the 3rd instant. Lest, however, your letter may be capable of another interpretation and you did not wish to convey to me a clear refusal to obey my instructions, I now, having had consultations with the Minister for Social Welfare, direct you (1) to inform Mr. O'Driscoll to-day that his suspension from duty and pay has been removed with effect from the 12th January, 1951, and (2) to arrange for the payment to the officer to-day of any unpaid balance of the salary which, in the normal course, would have been paid to him on the 31st January.
When you have carried out these directions, please inform me at once, in writing, to that effect.
If, however, you decline to carry out these directions, please inform me to that effect in unequivocal terms.
The issue now does not concern whether or not the officer concerned should have been suspended—your Minister informed you in his first minute of the 11th January of his intention to examine the whole matter personally. Unfortunately, you have raised graver issues. You have failed, on three occassions, to comply with clear directions given to you by your Minister and, on one occasion, to comply with equally clear directions given to you by me, as the head of the Government.
As, no doubt, you fully realise, the Government would be obliged to take the gravest view of failure on your part to carry out the directions conveyed to you in this letter. I understand that this fact has been made clear to you in the course of informal discussions which the secretary of the Department of Finance and the secretary to the Government have had with you during the past four days."
Mr. O'Donovan having replied, again intimating refusal to carry out the directions, the position was considered, on the morning of Monday the 12th instant, by the Government, who decided that directions from themselves, repeating those previously given by the Tánaiste and by me, should immediately be conveyed to Mr. O'Donovan. I conveyed the Government's directions to Mr. O'Donovan, who replied declining to obey them. On the evening of the 12th February, the Government removed Mr. O'Donovan from the office of secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and from the Civil Service, deciding, at the same time, that he should be awarded the maximum benefits, by way of superannuation, that were permissible in accordance with law.
In his statement, Mr. O'Donovan appears to suggest that the secretary of a Department of State has vested in him powers, the precise nature of which he does not attempt to define, entitling him to reject the instructions of his Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government as a whole and to act in accordance with his own judgment, opposed to their, of what is right and proper in the administration of the Department. If any such suggestion were accepted, the powers of government would, in effect, be transferred to the Civil Service from the public representatives who are selected in accordance with the Constitution to exercise those powers.
In law and in fact, the secretary of a Department is subordinate to his Minister in every matter pertaining to the administration of the Department. By express statutory provision, the Minister is the head of the Department, while the secretary is the principal officer. As such, the secretary has the right and duty of making proper submissions to his Minister, within the scope of his functions; but, having done so, he has imposed on him the clear duty of loyalty obeying the Minister's directions and carrying his decisions into effect promptly and without question. When the secretary of a Department is also the accounting officer for moneys voted by the Dáil, he is, in that capacity, required to answer to the Committee of Public Accounts; but, even then, an express direction from the Minister, to whom, as the head of his Department, he is responsible, is sufficient to relieve him of his responsibility in respect of any particular payment.
The essential issue, therefore, is the maintenance of the authority of the Government and of the particular member of the Government to whom a Department is assigned by the Taoiseach, as against any assumed authority of the civil servant who is appointed by the Government as the principal officer of that Department. Whether or not the particular officer referred to by Mr. O'Donovan merited suspension or any other disciplinary action is quite beside the point.
Mr. O'Donovan refers to previous suspensions of officers of the Department of Social Welfare, imposed by him or by officers subordinate to him, and states that: "In none of those cases was any question raised by the Minister as to the propriety of the action taken or as to the power of the officer to take it." These, however, were cases in which the Minister's authority could, in the circumstances, be assumed with moral certainty. The particular case that has been referred to in connection with Mr. O'Donovan's removal from office was in a different category. This is clear from the facts, mentioned by Mr. O'Donovan himself, that a report on the circumstances concerning this particular officer was submitted by Mr. O'Donovan to the Minister for Social Welfare and that, two days before Mr. O'Donovan suspended the officer, he mentioned to the Minister the desirability of an early discussion of the officer's position. Evidently, therefore, Mr. O'Donovan did not consider, before the 11th January, that he had any power, vested in himself, to take disciplinary action towards the officer, or that he was in a position to assume that any action he might wish to take would have the approval of the Minister. He seems to have realised, until that date, that the matter was one requiring full consideration by the Minister personally and a decision given by the Minister following such consideration.
At the end of his statement, Mr. O'Donovan refers to a letter which I addressed to him shortly after his removal from office. I consider it desirable to inform the House of the terms of that letter, which is dated the 14th February. They are as follows:
"An official letter has already been sent to you intimating that, on the 12th instant, the Government decided to remove you from the office of secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and from the Civil Service.
It was with great regard that the Government found this decision forced upon them by your persistent refusal, during the past month, to carry out directions given to you, first, by your Minister, then by me as the head of the Government and, finally, by the Government themselves. I should like to add that the Government, and I personally, appreciate the services which you rendered during your previous career in the public service."
Mr. de Valera
May I ask the Taoiseach whether it is or is not a fact that Mr. O'Donovan was prepared to carry out the instructions to pay the salary if he had got that covering authority from the Minister which is required in the case of an accounting officer when overruled by the Minister?
Not merely had Mr. O'Donovan got the necessary covering authority from the Minister, but he had it from me and he had it from the members of the Government and, every possible step having been taken to make him realise the seriousness of the position he was in, he still refused to obey the direction.
Mr. de Valera
As the matter is of some importance, in fact of very serious importance, as the Taoiseach particularly knows since he raised a matter of this kind on a previous occasion from these benches, will there be any opportunity given to the Dáil to discuss it?
I hope not.
But there will.
If the Leader of the Opposition wishes for that, I will endeavour to find the time to give him. He is entitled to it.
I hope not.
Of course, we will get it. The wee Stalins here will not stop us.
I think there is more important work to be done than wasting time on that issue.
Order!
The little Stalins here will not stop us.
Mr. de Valera
I would like very much to have an opportunity of reading side by side the statement which Mr. O'Donovan has made and the statement which has now been made by the Taoiseach. I would like to say at the very outset that there can be no question whatever of ministerial right and authority in matters of this kind—none. The impression is widespread that Mr. O'Donovan has lost his position because, in conscience, he was not prepared to pay salary out of public funds for which he was responsible as accounting officer when the work for which the salary was to be paid was not being done.
It was done. I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but the officer was working all the time—a married man with five children.
He was suspended.
Mr. de Valera
The next question, which is disturbing the public mind and anybody who is anxious for the proper administration of public affairs is, that it would appear that the Minister, although urging that this salary should be paid and that the delinquency of the particular officer should be overlooked, was not prepared himself to take the responsibility which clearly lay upon him to take.
That is not so.
Mr. de Valera
When the accounting officer was not prepared to take that responsibility before the Committee on Public Accounts, it was the duty of the Minister to relieve him of that responsibility.
The Taoiseach rose.
If the Taoiseach will allow me for one second. The debate cannot proceed on these lines now. A motion for the Adjournment, to enable the matter to be discussed, would have to be moved. If it is to be considered subsequently, it will be by way of motion, so that there may be something concrete before the House.
Mr. de Valera
I will consider that matter.
With your consent, I want to make one observation on the matters referred to by the Leader of the Opposition.
Yes.
Having regard to the things he has said, a still further wrong impression may be got to the public about this matter and I want to make it quite clear that every possible step was taken by me and by my colleagues to bring home to this man the seriousness of the position that he was in and he was being relieved of every responsibility, by his own Minister, by me and by the entire Government and all that was required of him was that he would accept the principle that a civil servant was bound loyally to obey the direction of his Minister, the head of the Government and the Government as a whole, and nothing else arose in connection with the matter. I believe I can say here, with your permission, to the House and to the public as a whole that no step was left untaken before the action that was forced upon us was adopted by the Government in the circumstances of this case, in order to insure this man against his own wrong action and also to make it clear to the public subsequently that we were doing no injustice whatever to this man.
Is the Taoiseach claiming that the Minister had the right to order a civil servant to defraud the Exchequer?
There is one further point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, inadvertently. It was stated that this man was not at work. He was at work all the time, by the direction of the Minister in charge of the Department, specifically given, while Mr. O'Donovan was away ill.
Mr. de Valera
As it is desirable to clear this matter up, so far as it can be done in this way——
It is desirable to make political capital out of it.
Little red Stalin.
I will have to take serious notice of Deputy Smith's interruptions.
Take notice of Deputy Cowan's interruptions.
The Leader of the Opposition might be allowed to speak.
Mr. de Valera
In reply to the interruption, I want to say, if I may, that we are approaching this in a very different spirit from the spirit shown by a previous Opposition when a matter of this sort came to be dealt with. I simply wanted also to refer to a matter which is disturbing the public mind in this connection. The Taoiseach may be able to relieve anxiety in regard to it. It is this: the Minister's telling the officer who was suspended that he was to report for duty, notwithstanding the suspension which had been imposed by his superior officer, was cutting at the root of all discipline.
Although I am afraid this is developing into a debate on the matter, with your permission, I will answer the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition because it would not be proper that the statement that he has made here should go to the public unchallenged. The Minister for Social Welfare directed the officer concerned to remain on duty because the secretary of the Department had twice on that day refused to obey his directions, and because of this—that in the first direction that was given by the Minister to the secretary of his Department not to suspend this officer, he had stated specifically his reason for it, that in his view there was no evidence against the officer justifying his suspension and that he would personally go into the whole matter as soon as it was possible to arrive at a time.
He arrived at that conclusion without hearing the secretary.
The Secretary had already made his case. It was on the documents before him that the Tánaiste said: "I see no evidence to justify it but in any event I will discuss the whole matter with you personally and do not suspend this man." In the teeth of that, the secretary persisted in suspending the officer and in refusing to pay this married man with five children, who had done the work, the salary the Minister believed he was entitled to, in the absence of any charge being proved against him.
Is it not true that the last Government were also going to dismiss this particular secretary?