asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if, in the light of modern research into the disease of alcoholism, he will consider the re-employment of a civil servant in County Mayo (name supplied) who has been dismissed from his Department on the grounds of ill-health due to alcoholism, without having been medically examined by an official-side doctor.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mayo Civil Servant.
36.
The person named was not dismissed. He was retired on superannuation terms which, because of the ill-health consideration, included the addition of approximately seven years to his actual service. He was granted a lump-sum of over £1,900 and a pension of approximately £860 a year.
I am satisfied that very great leniency and forebearance had been extended to him over a period of some 11 years and the decision to retire him was taken only after it had become clear that there was no prospect of his being capable of giving regular and efficient service to the public.
So far as the medical aspects are concerned, he was examined, following a history of absences, by the chief medical officer in October, 1971. Since then the absences continued in spite of promises of amendment. Before retirement took place, the case was referred, on appeal, to the medical referee appointed under the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, who confirmed the view that the incapacity was likely to be permanent.
Is the Minister telling us that this man was examined by a medical referee or by somebody from his Department prior to being dismissed? He lost his job and I not know what else you could call that but dismissal.
I have explained the circumstances. I am not sure how beneficial to the person concerned it is to go into the details of a health record of this kind and the processes through which it went. I should not think it would be helpful to have details of these matters entered into in the House. I am prepared to communicate them privately to the Deputy in full and to see him if he is not satisfied that the person concerned was properly treated after he has read the papers.
I am aware of all the circumstances in this case. I am not satisfied that the Minister, or his Department, has treated the man fairly. Is it a fact that he has not received any report from any medical representative from the Minister's Department or that his doctors have not received any such report?
It is true he has not been very recently examined by any medical officer of the Department. If the Deputy wishes me to ensure that he is now examined by a medical officer of the Department I am prepared to do that. Is that satisfactory to the Deputy?
Can the Minister explain why the report of an eminent psychiatrist, who has been dealing with this man and his problem and has given a favourable report, has not been considered in this case?
This matter was one for the medical referee. It was referred to him and the Department acted on his advice.