asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of the circumstances concerning the dismissal of William Smith, a civilian employee of the Army Corps of Engineers at the Curragh Camp, and, if so, if he will state on whose authority he was dismissed; further, if he is aware this man was re-employed some days after his dismissal in the first instance, and subsequently some few days later dismissed again; whether it is the intention to permanently exclude this man from employment at the Curragh Camp, or only for a period; if the latter is the case, if he can state for what period, and how has this been determined.
CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DISMISSED CURRAGH EMPLOYEE.
Mr. Smith was dismissed on the ground of having been culpably negligent in lighting a fire which led to the partial destruction by burning of a mortuary chapel at the Curragh. The dismissal was ordered by the General Officer Commanding the Curragh Camp, who has caused all the circumstances of the case to be thoroughly investigated. Smith was subsequently re-employed for a couple of days without proper authority. It is not intended to employ him again.
Will the Minister say whether it is customary, legal or proper, in accordance with the employment of civilians by the Army authorities, to have them tried by a military court of inquiry, and will he say in this case if the dismissal was ordered as a result of the recommendations of a military court of inquiry which actually went outside its terms of reference?
It is not customary to have civilian employees tried by a military court of inquiry, but it is customary and proper that a court of inquiry should inquire into the conduct of people who are working in a camp or barracks, and that is what took place in this case. This man was not tried, but an inquiry was held as to whether he was negligent in the discharge of his duties, and that negligence cost the State £150 by the damage done to this chapel. It has been reported to me that although the fire was accidental, he was so negligent in the matter that the Commanding Officer of the Curragh thinks it desirable that he should not be employed there.
Will the Minister say whether it is customary for fires to be lit by civilian employees during meal hours in this place, and will he say if any Army regulation has been published in the area of the barracks which forbids them doing so? Will he also give to the House the terms of reference of the military court of inquiry that was ordered to investigate this particular incident?
I cannot give the terms of reference at the moment; I have not got them. It was customary for civilians to light fires in the camp for the purpose of cooking their midday meal, but it is not customary for a man to light a fire within four feet of a building, and to light that fire on the side on which the wind was blowing.
Is the Minister actually admitting to the House that he is not aware of the terms of reference of this court to try civilian employees?
I said before that civilians were not tried. A court of inquiry was set up to find out what was the cause of the damage, and it found that Smith had caused the damage by lighting a fire within four feet of a building. The damage done on that occasion amounted, to be accurate, to £139 15s.
Was Smith employed by the General Officer Commanding the Curragh Camp or by any other officer, and if so, by whom?
He was employed by an officer of the Army Corps of Engineers, but the officer in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers while at the Curragh, or any place else, is subject to the General Officer Commanding.