asked the President if he will state the number of appointments made by the various local authorities in Saorstát Eireann from lists of qualified candidates submitted by the Local Appointments Commission since 1st January, 1932, and if he will give returns under separate headings showing the number of such persons appointed whose names were first on the lists of qualified candidates sent forward by the Local Appointments Commission, the number of such persons appointed whose names were second and the number of such persons appointed whose names were third.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Appointments Commission.
Since the 1st January, 1932, recommendations under the three names procedure have been made by the Local Appointments Commissioners in connection with 186 posts. In 43 cases the number of persons recommended was only sufficient to fill the vacancies. In 53, 46 and 17 cases the persons placed first, second and third, respectively, in order of merit were appointed by the local authorities. In addition, there were nine advertisements covering 27 posts, and as a result of these nine advertisements the candidate placed first in order of merit was successful except in one case. It might be mentioned that in forwarding the names of persons recommended, the Local Appointments Commissioners set out the names in alphabetical order and not in order of merit.
Will the Minister say how many of the persons who were placed first on the list by the Local Appointments Commissioners were subsequently appointed by the local authorities?
Does the Deputy mean how many were marked first on the lists sent down?
How many of those returned as first by the Local Appointments Commission were subsequently selected by the local authorities?
They did not give the names in the order of merit. As the reply states, there were 53 who secured first place, 46 who secured second place and 17 who secured third place. That was the order of merit and they were all appointed by the local authorities.
Are we to take it that 116 persons who were selected by the Local Appointments Commission as the best qualified persons were accepted by the local authorities?
In 17 cases persons who were placed third on the list in the order of merit were appointed. In 46 cases persons who obtained second place were appointed, and in 53 cases the persons who were first in order of merit were selected.
Then there were only 53 out of 186 persons who were selected as first in order of merit and they were appointed?
Yes, 53 out of 186.
Does the Minister consider that that is a good policy?
Evidently the local authorities were satisfied.
The Minister mentioned that the lists are sent down in alphabetical order. Are the local authorities informed as to the order of preference in which the Local Appointments Commission would have placed them?
I understand that the names are sent down in alphabetical order and there is no further information given.
Then the local authorities are not in a position to know which of the candidates is best qualified in the eyes of the Local Appointments Commission?
Nobody would be put on the list if he was not qualified.
Is there no information given to the local body as to who is best qualified?
The local authority asks for three qualified persons and three names are sent down. In a number of cases local authorities ask for one name only and they get that one name, generally of the person best qualified. They are not given any other information and the names are sent down in alphabetical order. When sending the names the full qualifications of each candidate are supplied.
I understand from the Minister's remarks that the position is that three names are sent to the local authorities and the local authorities are given no information as to which of the three persons named was considered best by the Local Appointments Commission.
That is correct. They are given the names in alphabetical order and supplied with the qualifications, but they are not told the opinion of the Local Appointments Commission with regard to the order of merit.
Is there any reason why that information is not given to the local authorities?
I presume it is that they do not ask for it. They merely ask for the names.