asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will cause to be laid on the Table of the House copies of all papers available in his Department relative to the suspension of the Higher Executive Officer in charge of the Information Section of his Department and bearing dates from 8th September, 1950, to 26th January, 1951, inclusive; if he will in particular table a copy of the minute dated 24th October, 1950, in which the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare drew his attention to the insubordinate attitude and irregular attendance of that Higher Executive Officer and asked for an early opportunity to discuss with him what action he should take to deal with the officer in question.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Suspension of Civil Servant.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the minute dated 6th February, 1951, addressed to him by the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare referring to the Secretary's objections to the payment of salary to the Higher Executive Officer in the Information Section of the Department, requesting a written direction in respect of the proposed payment and indicating the further steps he would then take.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the minute issued last year by the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare to the Higher Executive Officer in charge of the Information Section outlining the duties of that officer.
With your permission, a Chinn Chomhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together.
As the Deputy's questions relate to documents which concern the internal administration of the Department, it would be contrary to the customary practice to publish them.
Afraid?
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state (1) the total number of occasions on which Mr. Seán O'Driscoll, Higher Executive Officer in the Information Section of his Department, was absent from departmental headquarters since his appointment as Information Officer; (2) the dates of such occasions; (3) the number of meetings which he addressed; (4) under what auspices such meetings were organised and on whose invitation he attended in each case; and (5) the amount of travel and subsistence allowance paid this officer on each of the occasions in question.
The officer in question was absent from departmental headquarters on six occasions since his appointment as Information Officer, apart from inter-sectional visits made necessary by the disposition of the Department's Dublin offices.
The dates of these absences and the reasons therefor are as follow:—
(a) 13th May, 1949—On a survey of local offices with the Secretary of the Department.
(b) 7th-9th July, 1949—On survey with the Secretary of the Department.
(c) 13th March, 1950—Delivering a lecture to Social Science students of Trinity College.
(d) 9th May, 1950—Attendance on the Secretary of the Department at the Spa Hotel, Lucan.
(e) 16th-18th May, 1950—Lecture on Social Security in Longford and survey of local offices.
(f) 28th-29th August, 1950—Lecture on Social Security in Dundalk.
Five lectures were given by the information officer in response to invitations from the following sources:—
The Institute of Personnel Management.
School of Social Science, T.C.D.
Local requests from Longford to the Minister for Justice, through a local committee.
Dundalk Trades' and Workers' Council.
Railway Clerks' Association.
Two of these lectures involved no absence from the Department through travelling or otherwise as they took place outside the normal official working hours.
The amounts of travelling and subsistence allowances paid to the officer in respect of the absences mentioned were as follows:—
|
(a) |
Nil. |
|||
|
(b) |
Travelling allowance, |
Nil. |
||
|
Subsistence allowance, |
£2 |
8s. |
6d. |
|
|
(c) |
Nil. |
|||
|
(d) |
Nil. |
|||
|
(e) |
Travelling allowance, |
£12 |
5s. |
5d. |
|
Subsistence allowance, |
£2 |
8s. |
6d. |
|
|
(f) |
Travelling allowance, |
14s. |
||
|
Subsistence allowance, |
£1 |
2s. |
6d. |
In regard to the travelling allowance for 16th-18th May, 1950, I should say that the Information Officer availed of the Longford lecture to carry out, on the instructions of the Secretary, a wide survey of local offices of the Department. The Journey was also utilised to enable another officer of the Department to carry out an old age pensions survey on the same route without incurring any travelling expenses.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, would the Minister be good enough to inform the Dáil the date on which this officer gave the lecture to the Institute of Personnel Management?
That is not what the Deputy asked in his question. If he will put down a further question, I shall be most happy to let him have that information. I assume that lecture was delivered in the night-time when the officer was off duty.
I do not want to be content with——
May I finish my reply? If the Deputy wants any further information about the matter, I shall be only too happy to make sure that he is thoroughly informed because he appears to be very badly informed.
I would say that the Minister is very unhappy at the moment, but I want to direct his attention to the question I put down and to repeat the supplementary I have put to him: the total number of occasions; the dates of such occasions; the number of meetings he addressed on these occasions; and the auspices under which such meetings were organised. I am now asking the Minister to inform the House as to the date on which this officer delivered a lecture to the Institute of Personnel Management.
If the Deputy will put down a question for any day next week, I shall be most happy to let him have that information.
Is it not quite obvious——
That information is not asked for in the question.
It is.
Major de Valera
The dates of such occasions.
Is it not quite obvious that the Minister does not know; that the officer who drafted the reply did not inform him and that he has deceived his Minister, not for the first occasion?
That is a monstrous thing to say.
In order to prevent the Deputy becoming more explosive, I can now tell him that the lecture to the Institute of Personnel Management was delivered on 22nd March, 1949.
Would the Minister now say why he did not give that information when I asked my supplementary question?
Because it was not in the question.
It was.
If it was not, why did the officer who drafted the reply give the Minister that information?
That statement is untrue.
The public gallery is not quarter full and yet tickets for the gallery are not available.
The Deputy should not interrupt questions.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state whether Mr. Seán O'Driscoll was absent from his office in the Department of Social Welfare on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th September, 1950; and, if so, if he will state (1) whether these absences had been authorised by the Secretary of the Department, and if not by him, by whom such absence was so authorised; (2) the precise nature of the work outside his office on which Mr. O'Driscoll was engaged on these dates, and (3) the place or places where such work was done.
I have examined the September, 1950, monthly return of officers serving, which was supplied by the then Secretary's office, where the relevant records are kept, and I find that it does not show that Mr. O'Driscoll was absent on any days during that month.
Did the then Secretary of the Department not call the attention of the Minister to the fact that the officer mentioned in this question was absent on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th of September, 1950?
The record of the attendance——
I am not asking what is on the record. I am putting the question: What did the Secretary tell the Minister?
What the Deputy has to understand is that, while he can put a question, he will not be permitted to answer it. I will do the answering. The record of the attendance of officers in the Secretary's office were kept by the then Secretary of the Department. The return furnished from his office, an official return, does not show that Mr. O'Driscoll was absent on any days during the month in question. That is an official return.
I wish to put this supplementary question to the Minister: Is it not a fact that, in a formal minute to the Minister, the Secretary of the Department——
What about the Official Secrets Act?
——complained that this officer was absent from his section on 4th, 5th and 6th September, that he had tried on several occasions to contact him, and could not find him, and that, when the officer was asked——
That is not in the question at all.
——to explain his absence from his official position, he informed the Secretary that he was absent with the authority of the Minister, and that if the Secretary wished to find out what he was doing, he could go and ask the Minister.
The officer could be found in his office much more frequently than the late Secretary of the Department.
That is not an answer to my question. It is what you, Sir, would describe as an imputation on the Secretary. I am endeavouring to ascertain the facts in this matter, and it is quite clear that the Minister does not wish to give them.