Vol. 7 No. 12
I move:
"Section 7, sub-section (2), to delete the sub-section."
I take strong objection to the limitations made by this sub-section of the persons who may present themselves for examination or, to have appointments kept for a specified class. All these appointments should be open to every citizen.
I second the amendment.
This sub-section, to which Senator Linehan objects, was inserted for the purpose of securing two objects. In the first case it seemed to be the general consensus of opinion, both here and in the Dáil, that in the case of minor appointments it should be possible to restrict them to people living in a particular district; that the ratepayers in a district should have first claim on certain minor appointments. It was considered that if the people of a locality thought it desirable to restrict minor appointments to people living in the area that that should be done. In the second place it was thought necessary to restrict a certain class of appointment to people with special qualification. For instance, in the case of a dispensary that a qualified medical practitioner should be appointed, or, in the case of a nurse, that a qualified nurse should be appointed. In the case of the county medical officers we are going to insist on each candidate for the position having D.P.H. or some equivalent qualification. If the sub-section is left out it might mean that you will have all sorts of unqualified people appearing before the Selection Board. Of course we still have power to rule them out but, if the appointments are to be made by competitive examination, as they would in the majority of cases, the individual who got the highest number of marks, ipso facto, would have to be selected. That might lead to considerable difficulty and defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. I consider that this sub-section is a very material one for the administration of the Bill.
I ask the Senate to take the view that the sub-section does not carry out the view the Minister has stated. The sub-section contemplates reserving appointments for ex-soldiers. That is the power we object to; to limit appointments to any special class in the community. Surely it is not necessary to have such words in the Bill. As regards confining these appointments to a certain area how is that going to be effected under the Bill? Supposing a rate collector has to be appointed this sub-section does not help in the least. I do not think the Minister's reply has any bearing on the sub-section.
I believe it would be possible by the wording of the Bill, if we so desired, to limit the appointments to ex-members of the National Army. I am certain that is not the intention of my Department at the moment and I do not believe it will be. It has been the policy of Government Departments, as it has been the policy of most other governments to give special consideration to ex-members of the army. I think that has been justified.
No.
I think it would be an ungrateful thing on the part of the Government, and on the part of this assembly or the Dáil, the members of which hold their positions by virtue of the fact that these men risked their lives and gave up their livelihood to object to ex-soldiers getting special consideration for these positions. That has been the practice of my Department in regard to road work. In many cases where we gave grants for road work we found that the ganger happened to have certain political views and refused to take on ex-members of the National Army. For that reason it was necessary to insist on special consideration for these men. This sub-section was drafted without any reference to that idea. There was no intention of giving special consideration to ex-members of the National Army. I do not believe we could do it here. All we could do would be to restrict positions to members of a particular class and in practice that would be practically impossible.
As I said the object of the sub-section was to limit appointments. It is very difficult to find from a particular area and happened to possess qualifications for the positions. It is very difficult to find a legal formula to include these two things. Perhaps that is the reason the Senator seemed to have some doubt as to the meaning of the wording of the sub-section.
Would they not come in under "qualifications?"
Surely sub-section (3) might be worded so as to effect what the Minister seems to want. I think there are two words, "specific class," to which everyone will object. Everyone does really object to class legislation. We should avoid any wording that would seem to imply that we were picking out a class that would only be allowed to compete for particular positions. What the Minister said is perfectly correct. He has power to satisfy himself that persons must possess the qualifications required for such positions, and surely if he has that power he has all that is necessary instead of dealing with certain classes. I suggest to the Minister that he should not bring in these objectionable words.
If he strikes out sub-section (2), all that is required can be obtained by sub-section (3). Apparently, under sub-section (3), the Commissioners, with the consent of the Minister and after consultation with such bodies as they may select, have complete powers over the qualifications of all these officers. The provisions under sub-section (2) would enable him, I think, in addition, after he had prescribed the qualifications to close it up even as against some of those qualified persons by de-limiting the clause. That is what is objected to.
Yes, that is the objection.
I think, under this Section 7, even with sub-section (2) deleted, the Commissioners and the Minister will have the same powers as the Civil Service Commissioners in respect of recruitment through the Civil Service. It always arouses suspicion and creates anxiety when one sees special provision made for limiting to special classes what is, in other respects, open competition. The positions might be limited to special classes besides ex-soldiers, for other reasons. Sub-sections (1) and (3) seem to give all the power necessary. There are very objectionable words put in here. There seems to be no reason for them, and the fact of their being persisted in makes one very suspicious.
The Minister says he has no such intention, but that is a very unsatisfactory statement. The Minister may stick to his statement with the greatest possible zeal, but he may be succeeded by some other Minister who will take a totally different view. One must have regard to what may happen, when other Ministers come along.
When this Bill was originally drafted there was no sub-section (3) in this particular Section. It was inserted afterwards in consultation with certain Deputies in the Dáil. As I see it does go part of the way to do what sub-section (2) was intended to do. I am not quite sure whether under sub-section (3) we can limit examinations to those living in a particular area.
If you leave out sub-section (2) I think you will retain all you require. Sub-section (3) confers upon the Commissioners with the consent of the Minister most ample powers with regard to the qualifications for these offices.
I have no particular liking for this draft. I do not like the word "class" at all and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
There are some consequential amendments that will be necessary now. It will be necessary to leave out the words "in either of the foregoing sub-sections" as one of those foregoing sub-sections is now deleted. You delete the words therefore "in either of the foregoing sub-sections" and you simply insert the words "in sub-section (1)."
