asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if it is his policy to prohibit employees of his Department, who have witnessed accidents at work, from being interviewed by the injured person's legal adviser; if his attention has been drawn to the situation (details supplied) in the engineering section of his Department where such instructions were issued; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Accident Witnesses.
7.
It is not my policy to prohibit employees of my Department who have witnessed accidents at work from being interviewed by an injured person's legal adviser. In the case instanced by the Deputy two officers were instructed, in error, not to attend for such an interview but this instruction was cancelled as soon as the error came to light.
I am glad to hear that the instructions were cancelled. I wonder, however, if the instructions were issued in error? It is a prevalent belief——
The Deputy is now making a statement. He must ask a supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that the view is prevalent amongst employees of his Department and for that matter amongst employees of most State and semi-State bodies that their jobs are in danger——
I am not so aware.
——if they make a claim against a company, having been injured at work.
I am not so aware. If the Deputy has any other facts regarding that allegation I should be delighted to receive them from him. That has not been the policy of this Department at all.
It is a highly prevalent belief. Can the Minister give a guarantee that——
I could explain that matter in detail to the Deputy. It was a peculiar instance where there was a decision taken locally and they were not aware of the facts.
Can the Minister give a guarantee that the employee's livelihood will not be endangered if he——
Deputy Deasy, a final supplementary, please.
——is a person who has seen an accident?
Deputy Fitzpatrick, a final supplementary. Deputy Deasy should not stand up and fire questions one after the other. That is not what Question Time in the Dáil is all about.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister aware that in a particular case witnesses who were invited to be interviewed declined or ignored the communication and have still ignored that communication? Further, is the Minister aware than when the Chief State Solicitor was communicated with about the refusal or failure of these people to be interviewed, he ignored the communication also? Is the Minister aware of that?
I am not so aware.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister saying now that as far as he is concerned all witnesses to accidents in which his Department or his Department's vehicles are involved are quite at liberty to attend and make statements to the legal advisers for the injured parties and that they will in no way be victimised as a result of that?
Any instruction that is contrary to what I have said should not be issued by my Department.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister go a little further with me and say——
Deputy Fitzpatrick cannot keep on asking questions.
I do not know what the Deputy has in mind.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking the Minister to say that all employees of his Department who are witnesses of accidents are at perfect liberty to attend and make statements to the legal advisers of injured parties in his Department and that they need not have any fear of being victimised in any way as a result.
Provided it is done correctly, yes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister should not be hedging.
The opposite could quite easily happen as well, Deputy.
Question No. 8, please. We cannot spend all day on one question.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is the sort of hedging that we are getting.
A final supplementary, please.
I am not hedging. I preface my remarks by saying——
(Cavan-Monaghan): Why does the Minister say “provided it is done correctly”?
——on the grounds that everything is correct and above board, I most certainly will ensure, within my Department, that such people are allowed to come forward without any prejudice to them whatsoever and I am surprised at Deputy Fitzpatrick pressing such a stupid question.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister clarify what he means by “provided everything is correct and above board”? This is very dangerous and could very well mean provided it is not adverse to the interests of his Department.
Or provided that that particular individual would be protected if he desires not to go forward. The rights of the individual have to be taken into consideration.
I am calling Question No. 8, please. Deputy Fitzpatrick cannot hold up Question Time all day. He has spent ten minutes on a simple thing like that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to tell the Minister that he has done more harm than good.
I have not. I have answered that question in as clear a manner as possible. I must think of the rights of every individual in the Department, those asked and those not asked.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 8, please.
I could tell Deputy Fitzpatrick an awful lot of other things, you know.