asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if, since his reply to a question of 15th April, 1975, he has been made aware of a letter (copy supplied) from the postmaster at Galway GPO to a person (name supplied) suggesting that he register for temporary work in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs; and whether this affects the decision to terminate his appointment on health grounds.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Galway Worker.
31.
I have seen the letter referred to by the Deputy. It conveyed information, not a suggestion, and it does not affect the decision in regard to termination of services.
The Minister will agree that on a previous occasion, in reply to a question I had put down in relation to this person, it was stated that his employment was terminated for health reasons and the Minister is aware now, having received from me a copy of the letter he received from the postmaster, that should he wish to be considered for temporary work in the Department he should register with the National Manpower Service or the local employment exchange and, when temporary staff are next required "you will be considered with any other nominees for employment". That letter was signed by the postmaster in Galway.
The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a supplementary question.
In view of the information contained in that letter it would be reasonable for the person to accept that the question of his health disablement which caused the termination of his employment on a permanent basis was a wrong decision.
Statements of this kind are not in order at Question Time.
This man has been forced out of his employment wrongly.
Unless the Deputy puts a relevant supplementary question I cannot allow him to proceed.
This man has been forced out of employment——
Will the Deputy please ask a question? I will not permit him to make a statement at Question Time.
He has been forced out of employment and on to the scrap heap and the Minister was asked——
Will the Deputy ask a question?
——to consider this question sympathetically and this man has now been told he will be temporarily employed and he was told last year that the Department had no alternative other than to terminate his employment on health grounds. Surely that contradicts the argument with regard to health grounds when he is now offered temporary work.
The Deputy seems to be rather angrier about this than the person on whose behalf he is complaining.
Would you like to read the letter from the man himself?
Certainly. I shall read first the letter and then the reply: "Your letter of 7th December——
On a point of order, is it in order to have quotations at Question Time?
The Minister is entitled to make his reply.
He is quoting from a document.
One of these gentlemen asked me to read it out and now I am not in order. Which do you want me to do? I understood the Deputy most clearly to ask me to read it out.
No. This letter. The Minister has stated that the person in question is not as angry about the way he is treated as I am. If the Minister would like to determine this man's anger then he can do just that. The Minister is not the one unemployed, not yet at any rate. This man has suffered badly at the hands of his Department.
Deputy Molloy, please.
I want to raise two points of order. I want to point out, first of all, that I am not "one of these gentlemen". I am a Deputy of this House raising a point of order and I want to convey to you my protest for being described by the Minister as "one of these gentlemen".
I apologise to the Deputy for calling him a gentleman.
It is in order for a Minister to quote from a document at Question Time?
The Minister is entitled to make his reply in the normal way. It is a convention of the House that names of persons, if they can be avoided, ought not to be mentioned or reference made in such fashion that they might be easily identifiable, but the Minister is entitled to make his reply in the normal way.
I can only recall to you that frequently, when I occupied the position of Minister, I was prevented from quoting at Question Time.
It was my understanding, apparently in error, that Deputy Molloy wished me to read it out and I have no objection to reading it out.
The Minister may read it. I have no objection.
There is a matter of substance in Deputy Molloy's query which is somewhat overlaid by other matters. It is alleged this person has been treated in an inconsiderate way by my Department. That would be a very serious matter and this letter is being evoked to show that. The point is, of course, that there are certain criteria in regard to health applied in in the case of applicants for appointment to full-time established posts in the civil service and they are more stringent than those which are applied in the case of applicants for short term employment. Deputy Molloy, who was himself in charge of a Government Department, knows that very well and he should have been aware of that when he became so angry about this matter. The postmaster's letter was an attempt to help the gentleman in question by pointing out to him that, even if he failed a health test in the civil service competition, he might get unestablished employment where the health test is less severe. I cannot see that that shows any lack of consideration.
May I ask the Minister if he is aware this man has stated that on more than one occasion since he has been examined by doctors and they could not find anything wrong with him and this man claims he has been wrongfully dismissed? Independent doctors have given the opinion that he has a clean bill of health and I make a special appeal to the Minister on humanitarian grounds as a so-called socialist with some interest in the worker to take a particular interest in this case and examine the file and satisfy himself that the man did get fair play because he is carrying a heavy grudge over the manner in which he was treated by the Minister's Department. He used to deliver the letters to my door for quite a period and he was wrongfully knocked off by the Minister's Department over 12 months ago and I have sympathy with him. He is a small man who cannot stand up himself and fight the Establishment and I will do it for him.
I have read the file and I am entirely satisfied he was treated with the greatest consideration. I do not think it would be helpful to him to enter into details of his records here in this House.
I agree——
I am sorry, Deputy. I have given the Deputy every latitude.
I agree you have allowed me quite an unusual length of time on this and I am glad you appreciate the importance of it. There is just one final question: Will the Minister agree to have this man examined and get an independent medical opinion on his health?
Yes, I will.
That is very generous of him and decent of him and I am grateful to him.