Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 21

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 62—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £19,100 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun na dTuarastal agus na gCostaisí eile a bhaineann le Fóirleatha Nea-Shrangach.

That a sum not exceeding £19,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1927 for the Salaries and other expenses in connection with Wireless Broadcasting.

MINISTER for POSTS and TELEGRAPHS (Mr. Walsh)

In connection with this Vote it has been suggested that it may not be necessary to occupy the time of the House covering the whole policy of broadcasting, seeing that we have frequently traversed that field in recent months. We have had, I think, three discussions on broadcasting altogether and in practically every case we said all we had to say in regard to the subject. I am prepared to go over the same ground again more fully, if possible, if the House so desires. If, on the other hand, it prefers to confine itself to the rights or wrongs, pros and cons, of the items down here, that is another matter. I am free to follow either course.

Mr. JOHNSON

I put down an amendment to reduce the Vote by £10. There is another amendment in the name of Deputy Cooper to reduce the sub-head by £700.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Johnson's amendment is to the main question.

Mr. JOHNSON

The object of this proposal to reduce the vote by £10 is to give the House an opportunity to express itself on this question, depending, of course, on the Minister's answer.

Mr. WILSON

On a point of order, Deputy Cooper's amendment is to reduce the sub-head by £700. Deputy Johnson's amendment is to reduce it by £10. If Deputy Johnson's amendment is defeated, what becomes of the £700? If it is impossible to reduce it by £10, surely you cannot reduce it by £700.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it, Deputy Cooper will have to ask leave to amend his amendment to reduce it by a sum of £5.

Mr. JOHNSON

The question I desire to raise is one affecting the whole system of appointments in the Civil Service. The Minister has told us he is prepared to go over the ground.

Mr. WALSH

Is it, or is it not, the desire of the House that we should go into the whole question of policy? Is it the desire that I should give an explanation covering broadcasting policy, or is the House satisfied that we have already covered sufficiently the grounds in that respect?

Mr. JOHNSON

I was going to explain that we have had an explanation of policy within recent months with regard to wireless, and part of that policy had reference to the appointment of further officials. It was because of that explanation which was made to the House, and which, I think, generally satisfied the House as to the necessity for having further appointments made, that I am raising the question that I am now about to deal with. The Minister made a very strong case with respect to the demand upon the over-worked staff and the necessity for an addition to the staff. The House was made fully acquainted with that position. Then, in due course, there appeared an advertisement in the newspapers headed "Departments of Posts and Telegraphs Broadcasting" announcing that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs invited applications for the position of Assistant Station Director, stating the salary, and a Woman Organiser, also stating the salary. The advertisement then went on to indicate the qualifications and said "the appointments will be made by means of a Selection Board set up by the Civil Service Commission," details, forms, etc., to be had from the Secretary of that Commission. Applications were sent in, and, as I understand, from question and answer in this House, selections were made and recommendations were submitted by the Commission or by the Selection Board.

Then it was announced that no appointment would be made, and we were promised that those persons who had paid fees for their applications would have these fees returned. So far as these fees are concerned the reply might be satisfactory. I question whether other expenses which may have been incurred by the applicants were paid to them. I do not know whether any applications were made in that respect. But that is a small matter compared with the issue that is raised by the method of treating this question of appointments. An advertisement is issued inviting the public to apply for posts; the Civil Service Commission is brought directly into this question of appointments; the Civil Service Commission makes its selection from amongst the applicants, and then suddenly it is decided that no appointments will be made. It seems to me that that is a distinct breach of faith with the applicants, and with the Dáil, inasmuch as the Dáil was assured of the necessity for an increased staff. Following that assurance, and the implied consent of the Dáil, this advertisement appeared, and having gone through the whole machinery, the Selection Board having been brought into operation and having made their choice, for some reason or other unexplained, the Minister decides that he will not make any appointment.

Are we to understand that it is now found that the staff in existence up to date is sufficient, that there is no longer any need for an Assistant Station Director and a Woman Organiser, that the Minister has, by some method unknown to his colleagues in this work in other countries, found a way of avoiding the necessity for making these appointments? Is it that the present staff is quite prepared to work these exceedingly long hours? Or is it that the nominees of the Selection Board did not satisfy the requirements of the Minister? The prestige of the Civil Service Commission and the confidence that we were asked to place in it will be rudely shaken if this procedure is allowed to pass without protest. In a discussion on a recent Bill it was pointed out how necessary it is to remove all suggestion or trace of favouritism, or any suggestion that favouritism might be alleged against a Minister, and whatever may be the defects of this system of selection boards, it has been found to be the most salutary method of preventing charges of favouritism and nepotism. It will require the Minister's explanation to make it clear that there are really solid and valid reasons why there should be a sudden change of policy in regard to these appointments. The advertisement appeared in January; the Estimates appeared in March. I do not know when the Estimates were prepared, but the Estimates contain figures of salaries for these two appointments, and it is due to us to have an explanation from the Minister of the reason for this sudden change of policy regarding the working of this broadcasting station. It is with a view to extracting that information that I have put down this motion.

Mr. WHITE

I beg to second the motion. I would like to know from the Minister, when he finds it impracticable under the present circumstances to extend the telephone system to my area in Donegal, if he will consider the establishment of a broadcasting station in Carndonagh. I noticed last night that his first line of defence was to consult maps to ascertain where Carndonagh is. Cork has a much bigger population than Carndonagh, but I question if it is a much more important place. If the Minister would consider the establishment of a broadcasting station in our area I would have great pleasure in assisting his officials to find a suitable site.

Mr. HEWAT

Would that be instead of telephones?

Mr. WHITE

Yes.

Mr. WALSH

When speaking on broadcasting on the occasion referred to by Deputy Johnson, I laid emphasis on the fact that the staff at my disposal was inadequate, and that no time should be lost in supplementing it. With a view to doing so, steps were taken to secure the appointment of an assistant station director and a woman organiser. The initial papers reached the Minister about the month of January, and in the month of March, when the usual conditions. Press notifications and other essentials had been complied with, the candidates for both posts were examined. In the case of the assistant station director the Civil Service Commission reported that none of the applicants possessed the necessary qualifications, and that therefore no nomination could be made. I think that Deputy Johnson will accept a correction in that respect. In looking over the names of those who applied, I felt that there were some on the list who would be suitable, but I had no say whatever in the matter. Steps have been taken to re-advertise, and whether the new advertisement will be more fruitful than the initial one, is a matter that time alone will tell. But in the meantime, the important key position of assistant station director is unfilled.

I think that the Dáil ought to take note of the fact that this expedient for the filling of the key positions of this kind, is not working quite smoothly, is not likely to work quite smoothly when it contains a number of draw-backs which will only reveal themselves in time. It is a matter of very great importance to the Station that an assistant Director should have been secured, but we have not secured one. Let us assume that the new advertisement brings no suitable candidate, and I cannot foresee very much likelihood of its doing so, how is the conduct of that station to fare? Are we to re-apply and when are we likely to get the business of broadcasting attended to? If the Press or the public who, at any rate in the earlier stages of our broadcasting experience were certainly not too reasonable in their demands, were to request an explanation of any deficiency of ours in this respect, what will my explanation be? I leave it to you to say. If you expect me to do the business of broadcasting efficiently under conditions of this kind I venture to say that none of you would accept a responsibility of the kind.

On the other point a number of applications for the post of woman organiser was received. I do not know what the number was, but in due course the names of two ladies were submitted to me. I refused to accept either. I considered that the interests of the Station would not be served by the acceptance of either, and, as the Minister responsible, I must necessarily get an option in this matter. The alternative to that action on my part was to accept either one or other of these recommendations and to refuse to take the responsibility for the appointment. I cannot accept a candidate whose qualifications are not in every respect what I require, and at the same time expect to produce results which will justify myself in the eyes of the public.

Mr. BAXTER

In the ears of the public?

Mr. WALSH

Yes, in the ears of the public in this case. I put it to Deputies generally that one responsible for a commercial institution like broadcasting, an institution which is competing against the most highly organised and best financed institutions in the world, deserves every help that the Dáil can give him to make good. The limitations provided by Government control are already too numerous and they play particularly hard on one whose efforts are measured against unfettered competition elsewhere. If this Station of ours were a private commercial undertaking, and if I were the director or owner it would be possible for me to employ an official to-night, dispense with that official to-morrow and employ a new one. I have no such latitude here. If I employ an official to-night in this case it will be an official recommended to me by people who have no responsibility whatever for the subsequent actions of that official.

They merely make their recommendation. They, no doubt, make them with the best intentions. They are forgotten. They fade away, they are not even known to me. I then come into the picture and the subsequent responsibility is mine. Now I submit that I have to pick my steps very carefully here. Broadcasting is not a thing confined within the four shores of this country. It goes far beyond the confines of the country, and comparisons are frequently and are ever being made, and it is up to me personally and as the responsible Minister to see that nothing but the highest product is made available. Now to secure that maximum product, which is in competition with the product of countries where there is no limitation on the purchase of brains, is a tough proposition. I think the Dáil will admit that. To raise broadcasting to the level which I feel it ought to reach requires on the part of everybody concerned a reasonable extension of latitude to the man mainly responsible in the selection of the staff. I could not justify myself by accepting either of the nominations submitted. I know nothing about the people. I never heard of them before, I had nobody else in mind to put in their place, but I certainly would not accept them. I may as well state my reasons. The nominees in both cases were married ladies. I believe that they both have families. The fact that their husbands are in good positions is perhaps beside the point. But both were married women, and as married women I take it that it is very unlikely unbroken service would be available, in the normal run of life at any rate. I do not see how I could utilise to my satisfaction a service which is of an in and out, on and off character, here to-day and away to-morrow. That sort of service is of no use to me.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister accept responsibility for the advertisement which, under the heading of his Department, appeared in the Press?

Mr. WALSH

I have that point in mind and will come to it. There is nothing new in this attitude of mine from the standpoint of the employment of married women. They have never been employed in the Civil Service. Not only are they not employed as such, but the moment a woman marries the State dispenses with her services and takes upon itself the responsibility of giving her a gratuity. I do not suppose it is desired that I should break that rule, or that the responsibility which I have got to face is anything lighter than the normal run of the Civil Service. I should say it is very much the other way around; it requires a very much higher and a much more continuous standard of application. These are the reasons, roughly, why I had to decline the nomination. I will plead guilty to an oversight in regard to the advertisement. Unfortunately, it escaped my notice. The fact that it did does not relieve me of responsibility. That the application should have been so worded as to exclude the possibility of this thing occurring, I readily concede. I have come to the conclusion that it may not be necessary to pursue the idea of a woman organiser. In the interval, I have had conversations with the Department of Education in regard to the programme which this lady was intended to fill, that of the provision of a children's hour. We have come to the conclusion that it may be more satisfactorily provided by the Department of Education than by the broadcasting service. That is the view we take of this particular item at the moment, and if that view should materialise, a very different arrangement to that originally contemplated, will eventuate. We cannot, naturally, advance a cut and dried programme in regard to broadcasting. For one thing, we are cutting our staff to about fifty per cent. of the strength of staffs in similar stations. If we were to adopt their full programme of employees, the thing would be quite simple, but we are not doing that. We have to trim our sails and to make changes, and in making changes we may have to alter pre-conceived ideas. It may happen that this is not the only alteration of our programme that will take place, and we must be permitted to pick our way and to alter our course, if we consider that necessary.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

I would like to add a word to what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has said, but from a different angle and without being at all in agreement with him on the general question. I take an entirely different view to that of the Minister in regard to the filling of positions in connection with wireless broadcasting. I see no reason whatever why the ordinary procedure for the filling of positions in connection with wireless broadcasting should not have been followed in this as in the case of other appointments. I see no reason why the Minister should not be able to get good people by means of a selection board and the ordinary machinery of the Civil Service Commission. The Minister simply states that he does not like that machinery for this particular service. He thinks there are reasons why some different machinery or different procedure should be adopted in connection with this, but a different procedure cannot be adopted. The provisions in the Civil Service (Regulation) Act are explicit. The provisions of that Act apply to all appointments other than appointments which are scheduled to the Act or temporary appointments which may be scheduled to the Act by the Civil Service Commissioners. Consequently, the matter of a different procedure need not be discussed at the moment. The procedure which must be followed is laid down in the law. An advertisement was issued for an Assistant Station Director. None of the applicants who came forward were, in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, suitable, and no recommendation was made. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has stated the facts fully in that respect. Correspondence is taking place with the Civil Service Commission with a view to having the position re-advertised. The Civil Service Commissioners believe that suitable applicants will be got by re-advertising, and the Minister believes differently. If, however, on the issue of a second advertisement, no suitable applicant can be found, then we will have to consider how, within the corners of the Act, some different procedure for finding applicants can be adopted. There are other means of finding applicants. But in the meantime, until the ordinary procedure has been exhausted, there is no reason at all for departing from it. As far as I am concerned, I believe differently from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I accept the view of the Civil Service Commissioners that when the post is re-advertised somebody will come forward whom they can recommend.

With regard to the woman organiser, the position, as the Minister has stated, was one of error in the issue of the advertisement. As a matter of fact, in view of the state of the law at present, it was fundamentally wrong to advertise for a woman organiser. But when that was departed from and when a woman was advertised for, then something should have been inserted saying that the woman should be a widow or single. The general rule of the Civil Service is that only women who are widows or single should be employed. I think that is a necessary and a good rule. A departure from that rule would involve very serious charges upon the public funds, and would also involve unsatisfactory service owing to the fact that in many cases the amount of sick leave would be very much greater in the case of married women. I think it is not contended seriously from any angle that I know of that married women should be employed in the Civil Service. The position, however, was that there was nothing in the advertisement that would even discourage married women from applying. Married women did apply. The two people who were put first by the Civil Service Commissioners were married women. As a rule only one name is submitted to the Minister, but in this case the Civil Service Commissioners, as they were dealing with a new service, thought it wise to submit two names. The name that was first on their list and first in their order of preference was that of a lady who had no musical qualifications but who was regarded on the whole by the Civil Service Commissioners as being by far the best candidate. Another lady who was regarded as very good by the Civil Service Commissioners had musical qualifications. She was a lady who had been a gold medallist at Feis Ceoil competitions. The Civil Service Commissioners, in those circumstances, thought it wise to send two names to the Minister instead of one, so that if he thought the possession of musical qualifications outweighed qualifications which in other respects were superior he could make his choice and appoint the second lady on the list. Now it is a question as to whether, a mistake having been made, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should not have gone on with the appointment in any case. This was a temporary appointment, remember, and not an established post. My own view is that if I had been in the Minister's place I would have made the appointment, once the mistake was made in issuing the advertisement. There certainly were reasonable grounds for saying that an error had been made and that something was being proposed really as a result of an error which is not usual in the Civil Service. On the general question of the responsibility of the Minister for the wireless broadcasting station, I entirely disagree with his suggestion that the regular procedure of the Civil Service should not be followed.

I believe that as good candidates, to put it at its lowest, could be nominated for the position by a Selection Board as could be nominated by any other procedure. At any rate, if we follow the usual methods we can have no allegations of favouritism or anything of that sort. These are temporary positions, and if the Minister after a fortnight or a month, found the person unsuitable or unsatisfactory, he could discharge him or her without any further trouble. In the case of an established civil servant the consent of the Executive Council would be necessary, but in the case of an unestablished civil servant the Minister can proceed summarily to effect his discharge. The Minister might choose somebody different from the person who would be chosen by the Selection Board. The Minister might be right and the Selection Board wrong. Nobody claims that selection boards are omniscient, and the Minister might choose more wisely than the Board, but as a general rule, it is undesirable to make exceptions if they can be avoided. It is undesirable that appointments should be made by a Minister other than by the regular machinery. If the person chosen by the Selection Board cannot do the work he can get rid of him and get another and discharge his responsibility to the public in that way. While I am reinforcing the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in this case, I think it necessary to disagree with him on what he has indicated as the general position in the matter.

Major COOPER

The Minister for Finance has been trying to mend a very bad hand, and in trying to mend it he has exposed it. The position of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is so indefensible that if, as I hope, Deputy Johnson forces this amendment to a division, the Minister for Finance will vote with him. What is the position? The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us three months ago that his staff was inadequate, and that no time should be lost in supplementing it. As a result, the Civil Service Commissioners issued an advertisement for two vacant posts, the first being for an Assistant Station Director of Wireless Broadcasting. We are now told, with truth, I am sure, by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that there were no suitable candidates. The Commissioners found there were no suitable candidates. That is not what the candidates were told. They were told that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had decided not to fill the post. I have myself seen a letter to one of the candidates, in which it was stated that it had been decided by the Minister not to fill the post—not that the candidates were not qualified.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not aware of what letter was sent, but I know one fact that may suggest an explanation. While the Commissioners found that no candidate for the post of assistant director was suitable, they were of opinion that one of the candidates for the post of woman organiser would have been suitable for the other post if she had applied. I do not know if that does necessarily fully explain why a certain announcement was sent, but she again was a married woman, as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has said. I do not know whether that is a full explanation of the announcement sent to the candidates.

Major COOPER

I do not wish to compromise myself, but the letter I am speaking of was sent to a lady who was addressed as "Miss," and not to a married woman. She had applied for both posts, and the statement I saw in the letter was that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had decided that the post would not be filled—not that she was not a suitable candidate. If, as I believe, there were no suitable candidates, they should have been told they were not qualified, and not have been told that the Minister had decided not to fill the post, although the Minister had already stated that he was understaffed. I turn from that to the woman organiser. The Minister rejected two suitable candidates who were approved of by the Civil Service Commission, on the grounds that they were married women. Is marriage to be a disqualification for employment of this kind? It is not a disqualification for sitting in the Dáil or Seanad, though it may be for the Civil Service, but these posts are not Civil Service posts. They are temporary and not pensionable. A woman organiser in a wireless broadcasting occupation is much more of a journalist than a civil servant. What are her duties? They are to arrange a children's hour. Are single women better than married women for that? Another duty would be to give certain cookery recipes. Is a single woman, living in lodgings, better than the married woman living in her own home, for that? Cookery is a subject on which the married woman would be better than the single woman, and also with regard to household hints, she would be better. As the Minister for Finance told us, it is not a pensionable post. It is a temporary position. If a married woman, for reasons of health, could not fill the position, she need not be appointed, but I say, broadly speaking, there should be no differentiation as between a married and a single woman for this post. If there is differentiation, it should be on the side of the married woman, rather than against her.

We will get away from these comparatively minor points to a bigger issue. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has overruled the Civil Service Commission. He said, "I refuse to accept either of the candidates proposed to me by the Civil Service Commission." During the last 120 years, as far as I know, there have been only three people who used the "I" in that manner, Napoleon, the Kaiser, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—three great men, two of whom fell. As I say, two of them fell and I hope the Minister will take a friendly warning. The other two rose to greater heights than the Minister at present occupies, but I do not, of course, want to exclude him from reaching great heights. That is the attitude of the autocrat, the attitude of the despot—"I am not going to do what the Civil Service Commission tells me."

Once one admits that principle— though I think the Minister admitted it in a spirit of honesty and believed that he was right and that it was the only fair thing to do—you open the door to every kind of nepotism and jobbery. I do not suggest that has happened in this case, but I do say that if that precedent is adopted, if that principle is followed, the Civil Service Commission will be worthless; every safeguard of examination will be worthless if Minister take it upon themselves to over-rule the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. I have sometimes criticised the Civil Service Commission for not being strong enough; in this case they were strong enough but they were overruled by the Minister.

I hope the Committee will support Deputy Johnson's amendment. It is a more moderate amendment than mine. On the whole, I am glad it is more moderate; being more moderate it will rally more general support. It is not a question of £700 or £10; it is a question of whether Ministers are, on their own initiative, entitled to over-rule the recommendations of the Civil Service Commissioners. If these posts are found to be necessary later on, then let the Minister bring a supplementary estimate and justify it to us; but at present we would do wrong and we would be taking a backward step if we allowed the Minister this power to make appointments which previously he said he would not make.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the Minister's statement raises this issue to a height even greater than that which it appeared to me it had reached in the first instance. I ask the Committee to give little heed to the excuse that is made that the selected persons were married. That is only an afterthought. Quite obviously it is an afterthought because the Minister said as definitely as he could—and it ran right through his speech—"I know nothing about the people; I never heard of them before." It is for that very reason that this method of appointment was decided upon. Ministers were not intended to know anything about people before they were selected.

In the Minister's own advertisement he made it clear to prospective candidates he was acting as Minister and directly with the authority of the Dáil that the appointment "will be made by means of a selection board set up by the Civil Service Commission." That clearly indicated to the public that the Minister would have nothing to do with it. It is better that a Minister should not know anything about candidates. It raises the position to that of an impersonal choice, a choice of particular persons by means of a selection board such as was advocated here last week —something which would remove even the possibility of the thought that the Minister was going to have power of choice.

Mr. WALSH

If Deputy Johnson thinks that the mere fact that I said I knew nothing about those people had anything to do with my refusal to accept their nominations, he is making a mistake. I merely mentioned that in passing, and it has no bearing whatever on it.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister mentioned that in passing, but it was in support of a contention that he, as the responsible head of the Department which was running the broadcasting service, must have the power of choice. It was in support of that contention that he used the phrase that he knew nothing about these people, and had never heard about them before.

Let us consider the position we are placing ourselves in. The Minister says that in this particular service he must not be directed, in respect to appointments, by the Civil Service Commissioners. He is in the same position in respect to appointments in his Department as the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, the Minister for Fisheries, and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. If the Committee allows this to pass without protest, what is to prevent the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Fisheries, and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture refusing to accept appointments made by the selection board of the Civil Service Commissioners unless the persons concerned meet with the approval of these Ministers? That is the issue that is raised by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. One might say that the Minister for Fisheries, the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and the Minister for Local Government are to be free, according to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to veto the decision of the Civil Service Commissioners in regard to appointments in their Departments. That is a preposterous position to place us in.

The Minister makes the case—it is quite obvious what his mind is on the matter—that this service of wireless broadcasting ought not to be in the same category as the rest of the Civil Service; that it is something extern from the general State services; something that we are prepared to hand over to him as an individual to run and to make a success of. Now, that might be the perfect method of running the broadcasting service, but it was not the method decided upon by the Dáil. The Minister recommended and the Dáil accepted the recommendation of the original Commission; he personally brought before the Dáil the general scheme that the broadcasting service should be run by the Post Office. When he did that he knew well that it was to be part of the general system of State service. He should not have accepted responsibility for running this service unless he was prepared to treat it differently from that of a personal concern, of which he was director, and was personally responsible for the success of, with power to make appointments, to refuse appointments, to remove officers, and so on, just as he considered desirable, in order to have a perfect system. As I say, that may be the best method in his view of running this service, but it is not the method approved by the Dáil. It is not the method that the Minister accepted responsibility for.

Let the Committee remember what is at issue. It is that in some service, under extern Ministers the powers of the Civil Service Commission may be vetoed by the Ministers. They may issue advertisements for certain appointments, telling the public that the selection board will make the appointments, and then say the appointments will not be made; that the selection board's choice has not satisfied the Ministers' requirements. To show how important it is that future applicants shall have reason to be confident in the integrity of the promises made in the public advertisement, applicants receive a notice in these terms:—

"It has been brought to the notice of the Civil Service Commissioners that attempts have been made to use influence in favour of candidates for examination, or for interview by the selection board set up by the Commission, the Commission desire to give public notice that any attempt to influence any Commissioner, or any member of the selection board set up by the Commission, in favour of any candidate for public appointment, will automatically disqualify the candidate for the position he is seeking,"

and that is signed by the Chairman of the Commission. The effect of that is calculated and intended to let applicants feel that they are all on a level with regard to appointments, that influence is not going to be used by one who has greater access than another to the ears of the selection board, and that all are on a level, and will be chosen according to their merits, and according to the terms of the advertisement issued, the selection board of the Civil Service Commissioners being the deciders in the matter.

The Minister asks us to accept an entirely different view, and states that he is not going to run this business except on terms that he has outlined here to-day. I think the Committee, however it may regard the Minister, must not accept that position from him, and I put this motion down, feeling it was necessary to have the matter explained. I now intend to press it, with a view to asking the Committee to declare itself that the position taken up by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is one which we cannot support and cannot put our signature to.

Mr. GOREY

I take the same view as that expressed by Deputy Johnson in regard to this matter. Of course, the issue here is of vast importance, both to the running of the Civil Service and the welfare of the State. I think it is going a bit far when the Minister says that if he is to be responsible for the service he must have the selection of the people under him, to carry out that particular service. In such circumstances, we had better say, at the outset, that we do not want any Civil Service Commission at all.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Except for local authorities!

Mr. GOREY

I say this is a fine argument against the Local Authorities Bill, especially coming from the Government party.

Mr. HOGAN

Consequently you should vote against this amendment.

Mr. GOREY

We feared the very same thing when we voted against the Local Officers Bill.

Mr. BLYTHE

What precisely does the Deputy mean? Does he mean that he fears that the local appointments Commissioners would not do their duty properly?

Mr. GOREY

It is not the Commissioners that would be handling the thing. People would be given certain powers to select certain individuals, and from some experience I have had, I believe that some of the appointments under the Bill would be controlled by medical unions or some similar bodies, I do not care what they are. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs knew, when those two people were recommended to him, that he had power to dismiss them, as the Minister for Finance has told us, and that he was not tied to any particular appointment. He had the power of dismissal, and I think that should have been sufficient, and although he knew he had that power he did not, and would not, make the appointment. I think the issue is very clear cut, and, if we are to have Civil Service Commissioners at all, and this Dáil has passed an Act appointing them. I say this Dáil would be stultifying itself, and more particularly the Government party would be stultifying itself, if it allowed this issue to be shelved, and did not face this matter fairly and squarely.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not understand Deputy Gorey's position and I do not understand Deputy Johnson's position either, because he has also opposed the Bill that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health brought before the Dáil the other day. Deputy Gorey raises this matter in this form. He says that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has taken up the position, "I am responsible for this Department and must make appointments." I deny he has taken up that position.

Mr. JOHNSON

Were you present when he spoke?

Mr. HOGAN

Would Deputy Johnson kindly listen to me? I was present when Deputy Gorey spoke and what I have just said is that Deputy Gorey has said that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has taken up the position that he is responsible for his Department and must make the appointments.

Mr. GOREY

That is exactly what he did say.

Mr. HOGAN

But I am quoting the Deputy and not the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. But supposing he was, is not that the position that the Deputy took up three or four days ago in regard to local authorities?

Mr. JOHNSON

Not at all.

Mr. HOGAN

Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I was going to say I did not interrupt the Deputy, but that would not be correct.

Mr. WILSON

What has the question we are now discussing to do with the Local Officers Bill?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not speaking upon the Local Officers Bill.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Minister wants to distract attention from the issue.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not want to do anything of the kind. It is perfectly obvious that I must be making a very good point or else there would not be this interruption.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

Get down to the issue.

Mr. HOGAN

That is exactly the position the Farmers' Party took up. They stated, and they reiterated it over and over again, that the Local Officers Bill was an insult to the local authorities. I know that Deputies object to be shown their inconsistencies. I am discussing, just as Deputy Johnson did, the Civil Service Commission procedure, and the Farmers' Party said that it was an insult to the local authorities. They said it was an extraordinary thing to tell the elected representatives, on the local councils, that they were not fit to make their own appointments. I am totally against that. I hold that the appointment should be made by an independent body.

Mr. MORRISSEY

They are not fit to make them.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think the question of fitness arises, but I cannot understand the position of Deputies who take up one point of view in regard to local authorities, and another point of view on the alleged position of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs——

Mr. GOREY

Am I on my trial or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy Gorey is, it seems to me.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister is altogether out of order.

Mr. HOGAN

I suggest I am in order and it is really not good enough to allow Deputies to get away with this sort of thing. We are quite consistent in the matter. We have entirely divested ourselves of patronage. When we proceeded to do exactly the same thing for other bodies what did we see? The Farmers' Party walked into the Lobby and voted against it. Now we have all this indignation, all this sympathy for the position of the Civil Service Commission. I want to make that point first.

Mr. JOHNSON

Which is, of course, an utterly false point.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think the Deputy should interrupt me. I am not accustomed to making points which I believe to be deliberately false.

Mr. JOHNSON

I did not say "deliberately false." I said "utterly false"—a false representation of the case made on the Local Officers Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

Even though the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party joined forces on that issue, I do not know that their reasons were quite the same. Would not you allow the Deputies on the Farmers' Benches to express their own point of view?

Mr. WILSON

This is out of order.

Mr. HOGAN

Having made that point, which is a perfectly legitimate point, there is no doubt whatever that the talk that has come from these Benches is absolutely inconsistent with the talk that came from the same Benches when the Local Authorities Bill was under discussion. I just want to make one further point. There is no use pettifogging. I listened to Deputy Johnson very carefully. I am absolutely in agreement with the procedure laid down by the Civil Service Commission. I probably made more appointments, in the sense of initialling them, than any other Minister. I found it absolutely satisfactory. I want to be in the position where my duty ends when my Secretary wants me to note "No. 1 approved" to write my initials at the end of it. I suppose my writing approval shows I am absolutely in agreement with it? I have not thought a lot about this matter, because I have not any views on the question. I am not quite sure that a Minister would not be entitled on receiving a report of the Civil Service Commission to write to them, and say, "While I believe No. 1 is the best qualified of all the applicants, he is not sufficiently well qualified, and I request you to advertise again." I have not considered it very much, but it is a rather important point. I can see for myself, in view of the experience I have had, that that right of the Minister would not cut across the powers of the Civil Service Commission in any way. As some of the things Deputy Johnson said are close to that particular issue, I would like to say, without giving the matter very much thought, that I am not quite sure that the Minister would not be entitled, on receiving a recommendation from the Civil Service Commission, to say, "There is no question that your No. 1 is better than your No. 2, but your No. 1 is not sufficiently qualified for this post, and I request further advertisement." I merely want to leave that issue without prejudice.

Major COOPER

Does the Minister for Lands and Agriculture suggest that he would be justified in saying, "Your No. 1 or your No. 2 does not appeal to me, and therefore I am not going to fill the position"?

Mr. HOGAN

I have not stated that.

Major COOPER

That is the position.

Mr. HOGAN

I am dealing with the point made by Deputy Johnson. Deputy Johnson went on to discuss a most important question; that is to say, the rules and regulations dealing with the procedure of the Civil Service Commission, and while listening to him I wanted just to say that the issue should not be prejudiced. I am not saying that I have completely made up my mind on the question, but I do think, in certain circumstances, it is at least arguable that the Minister should not be in a position to write to the Civil Service Commissioners and say: "Your No. 1 is not sufficiently qualified. I have arranged with the Minister for Finance that there should be another advertisement issued."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I gathered from the Minister for Agriculture that Deputy Johnson must have been out of order. I can see no other excuse for the Minister for Agriculture intervening. We are, apparently, discussing the general question which does not arise at all. It is a very big question which we cannot possibly discuss in connection with this particular Vote, and on this amendment drawing attention to a particular matter.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

As the Minister has made a statement in regard to the general question. I think I should be allowed to ask a question.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am allowing the Deputy to ask a question.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

How is he to know that the person recommended by the Civil Service Commission is not qualified? Are we to take it that if the Minister has a personal dislike to the person recommended by the Civil Service Commission, that he can say, readvertise?

Mr. HOGAN

Really, that is a question I could not answer; it is so much beside the point that I made.

Mr. GOREY

When the Minister for Agriculture has gone so far as to give an explanation, would he be kind enough to explain this: In the case of the men who applied for the position the Board thought none of them suitable; the Minister told us he did, and he thought they should have recommended. Where they did recommend —in the case of the ladies whom he vetoed—he was in conflict with the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. HOGAN

I want to make my apologies to the Ceann Comhairle. I merely answered, as I thought, Deputy Johnson's contention.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister was really trying to draw a red herring.

Mr. BAXTER

I would like to be very clear with regard to your ruling on this matter. Deputy Johnson has moved the reduction of the Vote as a protest against the policy of the Minister for Posts in the administration of broadcasting. Deputy Johnson has made a case on that with regard to the making of certain appointments in connection with this service and the policy of the Minister not alone at the time that the appointments were to be made but the policy as announced by the Minister in defence of his action here this evening. Undoubtedly, until the Minister for Posts himself made a statement, I did not look on this as the serious matter it has grown to be. Deputy Cooper made reference to three great men. He suggested that the Minister for Posts was not as great as the other two; that he had not risen to the heights occupied by the others. I suggest that he is very much in the air at the moment, and if we are to judge by the arguments on his policy he is practically blown sky-high. He has made no attempt to defend his action. An advertisement was issued by the Civil Service Commission. Are we to accept it that that advertisement was issued without the knowledge or approval of the Minister or did the Civil Service Commission publish an advertisement not knowing fully what was required? If they did there is fault somewhere. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs did not make it clear to the Civil Service Commission the fault is with him.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think the Civil Service Commission issues advertisements.

Mr. BAXTER

That makes it clearer still that the fault is with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs himself. Did he not know when he was drafting and publishing his advertisement what he wanted? Did he not know the types of candidates who would probably come forward for examination? Did he not know what the law was that excluded certain types from filling such posts as he would require to fill? What is his answer to that then—knowing what the law was—issuing an advertisement, and when the recommendations were made by the Civil Service Commission, declaring that the candidates were not capable to discharge the duties he wanted them to perform, and accordingly he would not fill the posts? He told us further this evening that because a candidate did not reach a certain standard in his estimation, the candidate could not be expected to give the service to this State that the State demands, and that he could not be expected to make these appointments. Is he not then, condemning and passing judgment on the Civil Service Commission, on its Board of Examiners and whoever were responsible for submitting names to him? Is he not declaring their incapacity and their inability to fulfill the duties for which they were brought into existence by a law of this House?

I think the Minister's action, as indicated in his statement here this evening, would be likely, if accepted and approved of by the Dáil, to have far-reaching consequences on the faith and the belief that any type of candidate going before that Civil Service Commission will have. It will tend so much to weaken their faith and their belief and their sense of justice in what they may except from that Commission that it will be very difficult to make any applicant for any post in the Civil Service of this State believe that he is going to get fair play. The Civil Service Commission was established according to a law accepted by the Dáil and by the Minister. They are either capable or incapable of performing the duties assigned to them. Is it for the Minister to come here and make a statement that undoubtedly must convey to the Dáil and to the public generally the impression that the selections made by the Civil Service Commission and reported to Ministers are selections of individuals who are not capable of discharging the duties of the particular posts that they have made application to fill? That is exactly the position the Minister for Lands is in.

I do not want to enter into a discussion of the Local Officers Bill. I am sure it is out of order, and I do not think the Minister for Lands and Agriculture should be permitted to have drawn a red herring across the trail. There is no comparison whatever between the two positions, even though he does want to talk about them and even though he does want to make a point about them. That Bill is not yet law, and we do not know what the attitude of the Dáil or the Minister who introduced it may be, but we say very definitely that if the attitude of any extern Minister in the matter of making appointments under any law passed by this Dáil, is to be the attitude displayed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in his statement here to-night, we do not think any Deputy on any side of the House could defend the policy of the Dáil in passing such legislation that would give this power either to an extern Minister or a member of the Executive Council.

Mr. HEWAT

On this amendment we will be called upon to vote, and I would not like, as far as my small end of the stick is concerned, that a vote would be taken without having an opportunity of expressing my opinions on this matter. I have listened to the discussion which has grown to be somewhat serious after the disclosure of facts, which we knew nothing about before. I would like to say that the decision I have come to in this matter is, that I recognise, and I am quite sure that the decision of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was perfectly bona fide from his point of view. But as the matter has been raised and discussed, I think that the Dáil, or no Deputy as far as I can see, would not be justified in stultifying the position of the Commissioners to the extent that they would be, in assenting to the proposal that is outlined in the statement of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I do think that if that is a procedure that they accept, it would cut at the root of our confidence in the administration, and would have such far-reaching effects, that I feel I must be compelled to join in the vote in favour of Deputy Johnson's amendment, if it be put to a division.

Mr. GOREY

I have only to say before the matter is put to a vote, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was not present when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was giving his explanation.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

I did not profess to be.

Mr. GOREY

When the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was explaining the position he instanced the case of our competitors in wireless broadcasting, and he said that these people, to ensure success, had taken to themselves the power of appointment and dismissal. He said that the people they appoint to-day they can dismiss in the morning, and that in order to deal with this question if he were going to accept responsibility, he should have the same power.

Mr. WALSH

No, I did not make any such statement.

Mr. GOREY

If I have misquoted the Minister I wish him to repeat what he did say so that we will see it in the official debates.

Mr. WALSH

I merely made a comparison with the machinery available in my case and that available in the competing system in the appointment of officials. I merely made the comparison. I made no claim that mine should be the same, not the least.

Mr. GOREY

If the remarks of the Minister had any meaning at all it had the meaning that I took and that every Deputy took. Why did he make the remark if it has not the same bearing on the attitude he took?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We must accept the Minister's own statement of what he meant.

Mr. GOREY

I say that expression of opinion that we have as the Minister's opinion, expressed as he expressed it, raised an issue that we cannot burke, that I think every Deputy in the Dáil has got to face. The motion of Deputy Johnson to reduce the Vote will not affect the Vote or the service generally. It is merely a question of the approval or disapproval of a certain action that was taken. Anybody who votes for approval of that action votes for autocracy and despotism.

Mr. WALSH

I just want to say in reply that it should be understood that I have not been taking up the attitude that the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission are not to be accepted by Departments. Any recommendations that have come to me—and I have had a number—were accepted without question and I unquestionably accept the principle of appointment by the Civil Service Commission. I have never questioned that point. I believe it is a good principle, and the only principle available in the circumstances in which we work. I supported the introduction of that principle and I still support it. I have no desire whatever to detract from its advantages, or depart from it, but the case we are discussing was exceptional. A mistake was made in the issue of the advertisement in which it should have been specifically stated that married women were excluded.

Mr. GOREY

Why in this particular case?

Mr. BLYTHE

It is the general rule.

Mr. BAXTER

Did you not know that?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. WALSH

I have already clearly stated that in the advertisement the omission of this reservation escaped my attention. There is nothing very extraordinary in that.

Mr. BAXTER

Very extraordinary!

Mr. WALSH

Nothing whatever extraordinary. It might happen in any Department any day, considering the number of cases we deal with. The result of that was the recommendations to which I have referred. I could not see my way to accept them. I was satisfied that their employment would not be to the advantage of the State. I am still of that opinion. It is to be regretted that the initial error should have been made. Had a suitable unmarried woman been selected, there is no doubt whatever but her appointment would have been endorsed.

Mr. JOHNSON

Who would judge the suitability?

Mr. WALSH

The Civil Service Commission judges suitability, but I think the Minister is entitled to claim a certain knowledge of suitability. He has, I expect, to see to it that the necessary qualifications are provided. What I mean is, that a Minister is at least entitled to have some say in that matter.

Mr. BAXTER

I would like to ask the Minister, now that he is after repeating exactly the statement he made, what is the object of the Civil Service Commission at all, or what is the object of a Selection Board under the Civil Service Commission, but to judge the qualifications of the applicants and their suitability? If the Civil Service Commission has that function and discharges it, is the Minister in the position, that after the Civil Service Commission makes a report, he can come along and judge the qualifications?

Mr. WALSH

Not judge them, but become acquainted with them, which is a very different thing.

Major COOPER

Did the Minister instruct the Civil Service Commission to say that he had decided not to fill the posts?

Mr. WALSH

No.

Major COOPER

The Civil Service Commission stated it.

Mr. WALSH

There is nothing very extraordinary in the action of a Minister in ascertaining the qualifications of applicants. At any rate, I cannot see anything very objectionable in it.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is the unfortunate part of it.

Mr. GOREY

What did the Minister mean by "suitability" in the case of the Civil Service Commission selecting a suitable candidate? Who is going to be the judge?

Mr. WALSH

Suitability is suitability, and the Civil Service Commission is to be the judge.

Mr. GOREY

But why, if the Civil Service Commission recommended a suitable candidate did the Minister——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

As I have pointed out before, the essence of debate is that we must sit and listen to people saying things with which we do not agree. We cannot possibly have debate by means of cross-examination. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has listened to a good many things being said with which, I am sure, he did not agree. He must be permitted to express himself in his own way. Interruptions by way of argument, rather than for the purpose of ascertaining information cannot be permitted. If that were to be allowed, we could not get on with the business.

Mr. BAXTER

Perhaps you, sir, would be prepared to leave the Chair and make a statement as to the functions of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. WALSH

I do not see that anything would be gained by proceeding further. I had intended dealing more fully with the various points in the discussion, but I have been interrupted so frequently that I cannot see that any purpose would be served by pursuing that course. I leave it at that.

The PRESIDENT

It is now about three years since the Civil Service Commission was established. This is the first case in which the person selected by the Civil Service Commission was not appointed. The Minister has given his explanation for that.

Motion to reduce put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 32.

Tá.

• Padraig Baxter.
• Seán Buitléir.
• John Conlan.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Seán de Faoite.
• David Hall.
• William Hewat.
• Connor Hogan.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• William Norton.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Tadhg O Donnabháin.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donnchadh O Guaire.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl.

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Thomas Bolger.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• Patrick Leonard.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Martin M. Nally.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
• Aindriú O Laimhín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
• Seán O Raghallaigh.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Séan O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
• Patrick W. Shaw.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Baxter; Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.

Motion declared lost.

Main question again proposed.

Mr. C. HOGAN

When the Budget resolutions were under discussion, a question was raised, arising out of the speech of the Minister for Finance, with regard to the erection of three additional broadcasting stations——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There was an understanding, I think, that a Wireless Broadcasting Bill would have to be introduced before the end of this session and I think it would be better to leave over discussion regarding these stations until that Bill is introduced.

Mr. HOGAN

That is quite right.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

In order that we may have only one discussion, I would suggest that the general question of wireless broadcasting, as distinct from the Dublin Station, might be left over for the Bill which is to be introduced. On this particular estimate, we could take the actual expenses involved, without going into the general question, which will arise under the Bill to be introduced.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I am quite agreeable to that course.

Mr. WALSH

I do not think it is possible to guarantee that the Bill will be introduced this session. The probability is that it will, but there is a certain delay in drafting of Bills and I do not want to be held responsible if the Bill is not introduced. I am prepared to go into any points here but I took it that earlier in the night we agreed to confine ourselves to the items in the estimate and not go into the question of general policy. Otherwise, I would have opened with a statement covering the whole position.

Mr. C. HOGAN

The Minister, I presume, would not embark on the erection of these stations without legislative authority.

Mr. WALSH

No.

Main question put and declared carried.