Vol. 163 No. 5
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £19,800 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission (No. 45 of 1956) and of the Local Appointments Commission (No. 39 of 1926, No. 15 of 1940 and No. 9 of 1946).
As the Minister is aware, a new Civil Service Commission Bill was passed at the end of last year. I should like to know from the Minister whether all the necessary consequential Orders have now been made. I think they have but I should like confirmation in that respect. Actually, I think they were made before the Minister took office. In addition, I should like to know how experience has shown the administration under the new measure is progressing or whether some of the reforms that were considered desirable have, in fact, proved to be successful.
This is also the Estimate by virtue of which the Local Appointments Commission is provided for. Again, I understand, that while the Civil Service Commission is entirely a matter for the Minister for Finance, I thought the Local Appointments Commission as such came under the direction of the Taoiseach rather than the Minister for Finance. I think I am correct in saying, however, that sub-head A (2)— Salaries and Fees to the Examiners of the Local Appointments Commission— is included here. Perhaps the situation is that while the administration is dealt with by the Minister for Finance the policy is dealt with by the Taoiseach.
The Minister must be aware that there is and has been for many years— I freely admit that the Minister can say it was so during the past three years also—considerable public apprehension about the working of the Local Appointments Commission. There has always been and always will be some doubt in relation to the work of any commission of any sort like that which has so much power in the selection of personnel for local authorities. That is inevitable but I think the Local Appointments Commission add to the suspicion that is thrown round all their working by the air of secrecy with which everything they do is covered.
I think it would be far better and far more satisfactory, in dispelling the suspicion that undoubtedly exists throughout the country, if the Local Appointments Commission made a practice not merely of dealing with the second person who is recommended for a position but also if it made it the normal practice of telling the local authorities, or anyone interested on the local authorities who would inquire, what the approximate order of merit was of the first three or half dozen candidates.
Very often one hears that an outstanding person is going up for a particular local authority position. Someone else is recommended by the Local Appointments Commission and is appointed. I have known cases where I once felt that the commission should be attacked vigorously for not giving the position to a person who was undoubtedly the most qualified man but then I discovered that the most qualified man had been offered it and had refused. The air of secrecy which surrounds all the abracadabra of the commission's recommendations to local authorities means that there is bound to be suspicion and distrust, where no suspicion or distrust need arise if this commission acted in the ordinary way applicable to people, for example, sitting for an examination.
I entirely agree with the principle of ensuring that merit should always get a position. I am not certain that it does with the Local Appointments Commission, but that is due to the regulations within which the commissioners have to work, rather than to any individual bias. I am not competent to say whether these regulations are satisfactory or can be bettered. I hear people who are competent to form an opinion criticising them even more vigorously than I do. That is a nettle which someone will have to grasp at some stage.
I am not competent to judge whether the methods adopted by the commission to ensure that due and adequate regard and appreciation are given to the national language are the right methods, but I have heard many people who are properly qualified to speak on that subject say they have grave doubts about it. It certainly is a problem which will have to be faced if our system of appointments to local authorities is not to be left in distrust by all concerned.
In regard to the Civil Service Commission Act, it came into operation in February and of course we have not very much experience of it yet but certainly there has been no complaint. I think it is running very smoothly.
The question raised by the Deputy regarding the Local Appointments Commission is a very big one. My own experience in other Departments is that the Department settles with the commission the qualifications necessary. Sometimes the commissioners argue very strongly on some aspect to which the Department may not seem to be paying sufficient attention, but at any rate the qualifications are settled in the end and it is on those qualifications that the advertisement is issued.
I think the system of appointment there is really foolproof against the use of any influence. The candidates do not know who is on the interview board until they come before it. As Deputies know, the commissioners themselves are not on the board; they appoint the board. I do not think we could improve on the system as laid down.
There may be something in what the Deputy says, that there is too much secrecy and that that gives rise to suspicion. However, it might not be advisable to change that. For instance, take the case mentioned by the Deputy. If it is made known that so-and-so was offered a post and did not take it, then everyone would know that the man who got the post eventually was only second best. In the case of a county surgeon, people would say: "We have not got the best surgeon; we have got only a stop-gap." Therefore, there are various aspects which must be taken into account in considering these things.
