Deputy O'Connell gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 17 which appeared on the Order Paper for 11th February, 1976.
Adjournment Debate: Prison Officer Reinstatement.
I felt obliged to raise this matter on the Adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to me by the Minister for Justice. I believe that this is a blatant case of obvious injustice where a prison officer, who was severely depressed, on an impulse, handed in his resignation. When he asked an hour later for it to be withdrawn his request was ignored. Instead, the Department of Justice were telephoned from Cork immediately on receipt of this resignation. They wrote the same day and accepted the resignation. I ask the Minister to reconsider this case in the light of the information I will now give him.
It appears that this man, who has ten years, satisfactory service as a prison officer, had legitimate sick leave, which in the Minister's view might have been considerable. The man suffered severe depression and while he was on duty went to his superior officer and reported it. He was advised to see a psychiatrist. He was severely reprimanded on this particular day for reporting back for duty three to four minutes late. In a fit of temper the prison officer tendered his resignation. Within half an hour he realised the decision he had taken was a very foolish one. He knew he was throwing away ten years service. He felt he had acted irrationally in writing out his resignation. He sought out the officer concerned and asked if he could withdraw it. We know that people have tendered their resignation several times in jobs and have been able to withdraw it.
Normally one would expect the governor of the prison to advise the man to wait a while, consider the matter and come back to him again when things were more placid. One would expect the governor to advise the man that he was doing something foolish but in this case no such advice was given. One would also expect the governor to withhold the resignation for even a day. I have reason to believe that the governor immediately acted on the written resignation and he telephoned the Department on 9th July, 1975 and was told to submit the resignation. When the governor submits a resignations by post to the Department of Justice one expects it to take two days before a decision is given. In this case it appears that the letter was sent to the Department of Justice on 9th July and the return letter dated 9th July from Dublin said: "We accept the resignation".
There is something wrong about that. Any mischievous person could make a telephone call and say: "I am accepting the resignation". The Department had no reason to believe, until they saw it in writing, that this man decided to resign. I question the action of the officials of the Minister's Department because I think there is something more sinister in this than this man's resignation and the refusal to reconsider the matter as stated by the Minister in reply to the Dáil question.
How could the letter of 9th July have been received in the Department on 9th July and replied to on the same day unless it came by special messenger by car from Dublin? I begin to think that, perhaps, there are officials in the Department of Justice who are antagnostic to this poor man and decided they would run him out of the service without rhyme or reason. I do not want to take up too much time because I hope there are some other friends of this man who will speak up for him. I am alarmed that the Minister may adopt an intransigent attitude in this matter. I ask him to be objective about it despite what he may say about evidence in his Department to prove that this man has a bad record. He has had an exemplary record as an official. He has got brothers in the Garda and in the prison service. The family record is one of dedicated service to the State. The Secretary of the Prison Officers Association has claimed that this man is entitled to be considered for reinstatement in the service. The Minister says he may reapply. Because this man is above the upper age limit of 30 years he will lose his ten years service and cannot reapply to join the service. One hour after he resigned he saw a social welfare officer of the Department of Justice at his home in Cork and informed that officer that he would like to return to the service. This fact was communicated to the prison but it appears that the governor ignored it and decided instead that the man must leave.
Three hours later the man went to a doctor and that doctor said that in his opinion the man needed treatment. That doctor thought the man needed treatment and the consultant psychiatrist, who is a brother of the Minister, thought the man was suffering from a reactive depression, was irrational in his attitude, in his approach and in the decision he took. There is independent medical evidence, from a consultant psychiatrist in Cork, that this prison officer has been undergoing a severe form of stress over the past 12 to 18 months —12 to 18 months prior to the day he tendered his resignation. That consultant psychiatrist was of the opinion that the stress and strain was of a personal and confidential nature but it was responsible for his reactive depression and would account for his aberrant behaviour during the period in which he tendered his resignation.
Many people suffer from depression, and from reactive depression. It is a common enough condition but it can be cured; it responds to treatment. This man was attending the prison doctor who advised psychiatric treatment, as is the proper treatment. The man committed a foolish act by tendering his resignation before he received proper treatment for his condition. In a situation like this we must look to see if justice was done but I believe that an injustice was done in this case, and I am speaking as a medical doctor. The man acted irrationally and there is proof that he was severely depressed, that he needed treatment and that the reactive depression resulted from a particularly confidential condition. I appeal to the Minister not to adopt an intransigent attitude on this and have another look at the case. I ask him to reconsider it in the light of the information I have given.
I will not repeat any of the facts put forward by Deputy O'Connell. The facts are as stated by him. My intervention in the debate is to guard against the possibility of an injustice being done and I believe the Minister will accept that every responsible Member has a responsibility at all times to see to it that justice is done. For some reason or other something has gone wrong in this case. If anybody looking at the facts is not happy, further consideration should be given to it. I understand that this gentleman, in his ten years service to the State, gave good service. I have a letter from a Dr. Thomas A. Moynihan which states:
To whom it may concern: I have found Anthony C. Lang a conscientious prison officer, alert and intelligent during the nine years I had dealings with him in St. Patrick's Institution, 1966-1975. I consider him to be a good prison officer.
Because the person concerned was a good prison officer and gave good service we are in a strong position to make a case for him.
It appears that the man in question had some words with an officer in the prison over a simple thing; he was four minutes late and he was being reprimanded for this. We have all been late and many of us have been more than four minutes late. I gather that this simple fault—if one could call it that—blew up so much that hot words were used and this unfortunate gentleman tendered his resignation. Instead of a cooling off period there was a further blow up in that a letter was issued by the personnel officer of the Department of Justice accepting the resignation. I know we are fast, and I am not saying this with the intention of scoring political points, but even the whiz-kiddery in the Government could not deal that quickly with a normal situation.
In fairness, it appears that this young man was suffering from depression. I have not the benefit of the medical knowledge or experience of Deputy O'Connell but I know that it is medically recognised that anyone suffering from depression should not be asked to make serious or important decisions. I believe this young man was suffering from depression at the time, perhaps it was reactionary depression but there was a primary reason for it. I am convinced that he reached his decision during a fit of depression and, for that reason, everything must be done to try to help him. We all know that he was involved in a serious crash in which a life was lost about 12 months before this. I have nothing but extreme sympathy for anyone involved in a car crash where life is lost, it has a depressing effect on people. In my view this coloured this man's decision.
Dr. Moynihan stated that he has given a good account of himself in the service. If the Minister can in any way that is open to him—I realise that there are very few ways open to him— take this man back into the employment of the prison service we would all be grateful. His record in the public service is a good one. The Minister has already told us that the only way open for this man to get back into the service is through the normal civil service channels but, because of his age, he cannot re-enter in the ordinary way. I ask the Minister, on humane grounds, to do his best for this man.
Many people come to me with complaints similar to this man. From what I have heard from Deputies O'Connell and Collins this man was ill and because of this he should have been given a certificate of his illness and advised to rest for some time. Apparently, there was a mix-up between a number of doctors and this young man in that he did not seek what he was normally entitled to, treatment for the illness he had. He resigned in the heat of the moment, something which fits in with his illness. The Minister should consider this matter seriously. In my view there was a mix-up between the doctors this man saw. He should have got a certificate. He should have been declared ill for some time, that is, if his record is as good as I understand from Deputy O'Connell, that he was exemplary and that he was never subjected to disciplinary action. We should give more humane consideration to a situation such as that and there should be less application of what is known as red tape. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the case of this young man, knowing his family history and his own history, as I have heard it.
The person referred to was born in my constituency. I know the family history very well. They have given a life time of honourable service to the Department of Justice. I have been very much involved in this case over a period of months. I raised it privately with the Minister but I was not successful. I have nothing to add to what has already been said. Even at this late stage, if it is at all possible, I would ask the Minister to have another look at it. If it is not possible to reinstate him in the position he formerly held, would it be possible to find a place for him somewhere in the service of the Department of Justice? After all, he has spent ten years there.
Deputy Gilhawley and I have been dealing with this case. I regret that it should have arisen. Like other speakers, I would be grateful if something could be done to help this young man.
I know the Minister has to get time to reply but I just want to express the feelings in the constituency for the family of this man and to appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to find some way to restore him to his job. There is no point in repeating what has been said by other speakers. This is one of the few times an occasion such as this has arisen in the Dáil where the representatives are totally united in their request to the Minister to have this man restored to his employment.
I doubt that there is a precedent for a matter such as this. I want to assure the House that this matter was fully considered by me. I have had representations on the widest scale from a number of Deputies, apart from those who have spoken here this evening. I have had representations from the Minister for Defence, the Attorney General, Deputy Jack Lynch and Deputy Byrne. All these representations have ensured that I have had an opportunity, not once but several times, of considering most carefully this man's position. I want to assure the House that the decision which was taken was my decision. I must say that I object very strenuously and strongly to Deputy O'Connell's suggestion that some officials are ill-disposed towards this man. Any actions taken by the the Department of Justice are taken for me, and on my behalf, and with my full support. This decision in law and, in fact, is my decision.
This decision was taken by me with full knowledge of all the facts relating to the incident in question and in relation to this man's service. Those full facts are not available to anybody who spoke here this evening. I do not propose to reveal those full facts to the House. I do not think it would be proper for me to do so. I have to assure the House that, as the responsible Minister concerned and in full knowledge of the seriousness of the matter, I took all the facts into consideration. All the facts were taken into consideration and were properly weighed by me in coming to my decision. I am not at all impressed by post factum medical evidence.
I will just indicate briefly the immedicate facts surrounding the resignation without going into the full history of this particular person. I will just deal with the immediate surrounding circumstances. This officer is a member of the prison service. The prison service is a demanding career. It demands standards of self-discipline. It demands standards of discipline within the service in addition to self-discipline. It demands standards so that the prisons can be run efficiently. A prison is a difficult place to run and it can only be run efficiently provided the staff observe the highest standards in all their activities. One area of activity where this is particularly important, where you have a 24 hour continuous basis, where a prison works on a 24 hour cycle day in day out, one area in which the highest standards are necessary, is that of punctuality.
On 1st July, 1975, this man was warned about late arrival on duty on six occasions in the month of June. On 8th July, after being warned, he was late again. He was given a final warning and was told that a further lapse would result in the withdrawal of the privilege of living out. Notwithstanding all these warnings, he was late again on 9th July and was told that the privilege of living out was withdrawn. That was all. He had all these warnings, all this patience shown by his superior officer——
The man was sick.
——over that time on a matter which is critical to the efficient running of a prison. His reaction to the final warning when the privilege was withdrawn was that he asked for a sheet of paper so that he could resign. He wrote out his resignation and his resignation was accepted. There was nothing about his comportment, nothing about his demeanour, to suggest that the man was ill or not in full possession of all his faculties and all his senses. I have not the slightest doubt that the man was not ill. If he was, he had sufficient experience in the past of consulting doctors to know where to have gone.
Post factum evidence has been produced. I am afraid it is not acceptable to me. Nor do I accept, as was suggested, that the man resigned in a temper. There was no suggestion of that. It was a calm and deliberate act. In the context in which it was tendered, it was a perfectly rational and, I suppose one might almost say, a logical reaction. He was not prepared to take the burden of prison discipline and, consequently, when he was told that the privilege of living out was withdrawn—nothing more than that; he was not threatened with dismissal; he was not threatened with any more severe disciplinary penalties; he was merely told that this privilege was withdrawn—his reaction was to calmly offer his resignation from the prison service. His resignation was accepted. It was conveyed to me.
He threw away his cap.
Deputy Loughnane is speaking here at third hand.
He did not resign calmly.
He knows nothing about the case.
The Minister used the word "calmly". He threw away his cap and kicked it.
Some six Members have spoken on this motion. The Minister must be allowed to reply without interruption.
He threw away his cap and kicked his cap. That is not acting calmly.
Can I not appeal to the Deputy's sense of fair play? If the Deputy does not desist, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
With respect, Deputy Loughnane knows nothing about the case. I am in possession of all the facts. One of the facts I am telling the House is that the resignation was offered calmly and rationally and with no sense of temper.
We cannot have the Minister giving wrong information.
Deputy O'Connell, please.
The medical evidence is there about treatment for depression.
The Deputy will resume his seat. Six members have spoken already.
If a man throws down his cap and kicks it, he is not resigning calmly.
There is a time limit to this motion.
The burden of the speeches made here this evening was to ask for a second look at this matter. I want to assure the House that I have examined it in the greatest detail, both at the time of the incident and since following the myriad representations I received on behalf of this man. I have examined the matter fully and I am satisfied the resignation was fully understood by him, that it was not given in a fit of temper and was given calmly. I am satisfied I accepted the resignation properly and I am further satisfied that the action I took was the proper action.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 19th February, 1976.