Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 13.—Civil Service Commission.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £3,821 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Coimisiún na Stát-Sheirbhíse (Uimh. 5 de 1924 agus Uimh. 41 de 1926) agus an Choimisiún um Cheapacháin Aitiúla (Uimh. 39 de 1926).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £3,821 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission (No. 5 of 1924 and No. 41 of 1926) and of the Local Appointments Commission (No. 39 of 1926).

This Supplementary Estimate is required on account of the extra expenditure falling on the Civil Service Commission in connection with the abnormal recruitment of Civil Service staff not foreseen at the time the original Estimate was prepared. The legislative measures of the Government have necessitated expansions of staff in most Departments, especially in Local Government and Public Health, Industry and Commerce, Lands, Agriculture and in the office of the Revenue Commissioners. Evidently the expectation that a larger number of posts than were required to be filled from the competitive examinations held this year occasioned a considerable increase in the number of candidates putting themselves forward as compared with 1932. In addition to the ordinary examinations for the general service classes, it has been necessary to arrange examinations this year which had no counterpart in previous years. For instance, an examination for the posts of cattle and meat supervisors was held in October, and an examination for posts as investigation officers for means tests in connection with unemployment assistance and old age pensions will be held in January. The total net entries for the Civil Service examinations rose from something like 3,500 in 1932 to 9,011 in 1933, and have been almost 10,000 in the first ten months of this year.

Mr. Norton

I would like to know if the Minister can give the House any information as to the number of candidates who competed in the examinations for employment clerkships, and what the income from fees was in respect of that examination? I would like to know also if he can give the House similar information in connection with the examination for the appointment of temporary assistant meat inspectors and what the income in fees was in that respect also?

Mr. MacEntee

Of course, this is a Supplementary Estimate and the usual limitations apply in discussing it. The employment clerks' examination was held in 1933, and, consequently, is not covered by this Supplementary Estimate, but I can say that the number of candidates who sat was almost 4,000 and that the amount obtained in examination fees was almost £4,000. I may add that the examination was a very costly process for us.

Mr. Norton

And it was certainly very costly for the applicants, because I understand that the Minister required a fee of £1 from each candidate. I want to put it to the Minister that that is an exceptionally high fee.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is now dealing with an examination that was held in 1933.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Which does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Norton

Then I shall deal with the examination for temporary assistant meat inspectors to which the Minister made reference in his opening speech. That examination was held during this financial year. The candidates were expected to pay a fee of £1 each before being allowed to sit for it. Many of those competing were unemployed persons. To demand a fee of £1 from an unemployed person seeking a temporary post seems to me to be unreasonable. I gather from what I have seen in the newspapers that something like 2,000 people competed in that examination. Therefore, to extract a sum of £2,000 in fees for posts numbering 120 in the aggregate seems to me to be an unreasonable procedure altogether. I think that the Minister for Finance might well look into the matter with a view to reducing the fee from £1 to something nominal. It is not desirable that candidates should be debarred from competing at examinations because of the difficulty they may find in being able to put up the required fee. The Minister, I am sure, is aware of the fact that it is not often easy for people who are unemployed, people who are receiving no unemployment insurance benefit and only an inadequate sum in unemployment assistance, to put up a fee of £1 if they desire to sit for these examinations. I suggest that the maximum fee in these cases ought not to be more than 5/-. The additional cost to the State would be relatively small, and a fee, such as I have suggested, would be more in accord with the capacity of applicants to pay.

There is another matter that I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister in the hope that he may be able to do something to remedy the procedure adopted by the Civil Service Commission. It deals with the matter of examinations in oral Irish. In the case of some grades recruited to the Civil Service there is a written examination in Irish on entry as well as an oral examination. When a person is subsequently appointed to an established position, it is on the condition that within a certain period after receiving the established appointment or before that established appointment is definitely confirmed, he or she will undergo a further examination in oral Irish. I put it to the Minister that that is not a satisfactory method of dealing with the qualifications of candidates or of civil servants in the matter of Irish. I suggest to the Minister that the procedure requiring a candidate to undergo a second examination in oral Irish is one that ought to be abolished.

For instance, whatever standard the Civil Service Commissioners require a candidate to have, they should ascertain whether he reaches that standard at the first examination, or they should, if necessary, make the standard higher, or require a more detailed examination in the first instance. Once, however, a candidate has got through the first examination and has been appointed to a post, he should not be obliged to undergo a further test. I suggest that one test only should be applied and that is the first test. If the second test is applied rigidly, as it has been in some cases then the candidate after he has been some time acting on probation in an established post, finds himself threatened with cancellation of that appointment. I should be glad if the Minister would look into that matter and see if it is possible to arrange that whatever test is imposed should be imposed in the first instance, and that no candidate who has been acting on probation for two years should be threatened with cancellation of an appointment if he does not reach the standard required by the Civil Service Commissioners as a result of a second oral Irish test.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think the point in regard to the oral Irish test arises really on the Vote for the Civil Service Commissioners. It arises on the Vote for the Minister for Finance because he is responsible for conveying to the Civil Service Commission what the policy of the Government is in regard to a matter of this kind. I think the contention is that whatever standard we require should be laid down and exacted from the candidate at the first entrance examination alone, and that no subsequent examination should be required. The invariable rule in regard to all Civil Service appointments is that a person is appointed on probation and his continuance in the Civil Service is conditional on his being efficient and satisfactory during the whole period of his probation. At the end of his probation, the Civil Service authorities should be satisfied that he is equipped to continue in their service, and that he will in all probability give efficient service. It is the policy of the Government that, so far as possible, all public business will be conducted through Irish. That is not going to be an ideal that will be easily realised, but, in any event, the use of Irish in all Departments is growing. A person entering the general service classes may find himself, owing to the requirements of the service, in a Department where comparatively little use is made of Irish, but he must hold himself in such a condition in regard to Irish, that if at any time he is called upon to serve in another Department where Irish is in more general use, he will be able to bring to the public service in that Department just as good a knowledge of Irish as he would have been able to show at the beginning of his service.

The unfortunate thing about Irish is that quite a considerable number of people who had a good knowledge of Irish when they entered the Service have failed to maintain that knowledge. Quite a number of people who passed the original test, failed to pass the test to which they were submitted at the end of their probationary period. The only way to cure that condition is not, it seems to me, to dispense with the probationary period altogether, as Deputy Norton suggests, but to make the probationary test just as severe and, if necessary, even more severe than the original entrance test. I think it is very important that those in the Service should know that so far from its being the policy of the present Government to lessen the requirements in regard to Irish, the whole tendency will be to increase them, and so far from people having any expectation that the Irish test will be dispensed with at the end of the probationary period, the expectation should be that it will be made more and more rigorous as time goes on.

With regard to the other question about the examinations for temporary meat inspectors, I should like to say that it is not true to suggest that the majority of applicants for these positions were people who were out of work.

Mr. Norton

I did not say the majority. There was a large number of them.

Mr. MacEntee

The fairness of an examination fee can be gauged by the number of people who are willing to pay that fee to sit for the examination. If we were to reduce this fee below the figure that has proved sufficient to enable us to get a sufficient number of candidates for any examination, the effect would be to clog up the whole process of selection or the whole process of examination for entrance to the Civil Service. When the fee is of a significant amount, a person will think twice before he pays it and will examine himself to see whether, in fact, he has any reasonable chance of getting one of the posts. It is only people who think they have a chance of getting posts that we want to sit for these examinations, because if you get a number of people entering who have obviously no chance of passing the examination, not merely does it mean that it will take a longer time to secure suitable candidates to fill the vacancies, but it involves considerably greater expense for the Government in making arrangements for the examinations. 4,000 persons were willing to sit for the examination for temporary meat inspectors—I am merely giving that as an instance because I happen to know the number —if instead of the fee being £1, it had been 5/-, it would have been a case not of examining 4,000 people, but a case of examining probably 25,000 people, because everybody who thought, even on the flimiest grounds, that he had the faintest chance of securing one of these positions would have been willing to gamble that 5/- in order to get a chance of sitting for the examination. Then we would have the difficulty of providing examiners, printing examination papers, and securing examination halls in order to get 120 inspectors from these 25,000 individuals. It is not merely a question of simply reducing the fee; it is a case of fixing the fee at such an amount as will get you such a number of qualified competitors for any one post as will enable you to fill this post with the greatest efficiency and expedition. It is on that basis that these fees are being fixed, and I do not see how you are going to carry on the work of the Civil Service Commissioners and to provide the staff necessary to operate the machinery set up by the Dáil, if these fees are reduced to insignificant amounts.

Mr. Norton

I do not think that people would enter for these examinations with the flippancy that the Minister appears to think possible, if the fees were reduced—

Mr. MacEntee

See the results.

Mr. Norton

—from £1 to 5/-. There is something more than the mere possession of 5/- required in order that a person may compete at an examination. He has to get to the examination centre. Take the case of a candidate, say, in West Cork or in Donegal. He would require to have, not merely a fee of 5/- and be willing to part with it to the Minister for Finance, but in addition he would require to have the sum necessary to travel from West Cork or Donegal to Dublin.

Mr. MacEntee

Not at all; there were local centres.

Mr. Norton

For the meat inspectors' examination?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Norton

Which was the nearest to Donegal.

Mr. MacEntee

Sligo, I think.

Mr. Norton

And which was the nearest to Bantry, say?

Mr. MacEntee

Cork City.

Mr. Norton

A person living in Bantry would, therefore, have to get down to Cork City. I object to the whole basis of the test applied to these people. I could understand the test that you are going to examine people on the basis that they are of good character and are good citizens, but the test which the Minister applies is that any fool who has got £1 and sufficient to pay his railway fare can compete at these examinations.

Mr. MacEntee

He would be a fool to enter if he had not the educational equipment or the educational standards which are prescribed in these examinations.

Mr. Norton

I am putting this point to the Minister. Any fool with a pound and a railway ticket can compete in these examinations. A poor man with intelligence might find it difficult to borrow the pound. The Minister confers a definite advantage on the fool with the pound as distinct from the poor man who cannot borrow the money.

Mr. MacEntee

But the fool and his pound are soon parted—that is no advantage.

Mr. Norton

The Minister says he wants the type of candidate who thinks he has a chance in the examination. Let us assume that 2,000 university professors sit for an examination for appointments as meat inspectors. That would probably come up to the Minister's expectations of good competition. Assuming 2,000 professors sat for examination, 1,880 would have to be failures, because there would only be 120 appointments offered. The very fact that there is a limited number of posts is bound to result in some people being disappointed. The fact that people fail in examinations is no reason for saying that that in itself is a case for screening the number of applicants. The whole principle of giving the advantage to the person with the most money to enable him to compete in an examination is an unfair one. I did not think the Minister would rely upon it as his line of defence. Surely there could be some other test applied besides the test of the possession of money. I am aware that some applicants found considerable difficulty in borrowing the money and their railway fare in order to compete in the examination. I still think there is a good case for a substantial reduction in the examination fees, so that people who may not find it so easy as the Minister thinks to pick up £1 notes will be given an opportunity of qualifying for examination. With regard to the other point, I am not suggesting——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I allowed Deputy Norton to make a long statement and I permitted the Minister to reply. These matters they have discussed really relate to general policy and they ought to be raised elsewhere. They cannot be dealt with on this particular Estimate.

Mr. Norton

If the Chair rules that way, I am quite satisfied. I would like, however, to put this point. Under the present method of holding two oral Irish examinations the Minister is recruiting young people at 14 years of age. They are kept in the Service until they are 18 or 19 years and they are then pushed out if they fail to pass the second oral Irish examination. They are pushed out at an age when it is not possible to find employment as apprentices in industry.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the lowest age for recruitment is 16½ years, unless the Deputy is talking about Post Office employees.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister will look up the age for entrance in the case of Civil Service boy messengers he will find it is 14½ years.

General Mulcahy

This Estimate adds considerably to the Estimates brought under the Civil Service Commission. I would like to ask the Minister whether fresh taxation will be imposed to make up this amount. The Minister indicates that there will not. I would like to ask him if there was any other reason for increasing this Estimate than that the Civil Service machine is growing and growing rapidly, and that the number of civil servants is increasing and the general Civil Service is an increasing burden on the people.

Mr. MacEntee

The real reason for introducing this Estimate is that the number of applicants for admission into the Civil Service has increased considerably. I think I gave in reply to Deputy McGilligan a month or six weeks ago some figures which showed that the total cost of the Civil Service at this moment is somewhat less than it was on the 31st March, 1932. There are a considerable number of posts of a new kind being created. Some of these have been filled by redundant officers. To compensate for the increase in the personnel of the service there has been a considerable number of retirements and newer people, younger people, whose places on the incrementary scale are not as high as those who retire, have come to replace the older men going out at the top. I do not think there has been any actual increase in the personnel. There has been an increase in the number trying to get into the Civil Service, and it is mainly because of that that this Estimate is required.

General Mulcahy

The Minister mentioned that the Civil Service census is carried out on the 1st January every year.

Mr. MacEntee

Not a census—a statement.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that the number of civil servants on the 1st January, 1934, was found to be less than on the 1st January, 1932?

Mr. MacEntee

I could not commit myself to that, but so far as the figures supplied to me in connection with a Parliamentary question are concerned—I was rather surprised myself when I saw them—they showed that the number of people in the Civil Service now cost less than on the 31st March, 1932.

General Mulcahy

If the position is that it is simply a phenomenon that has arisen in the country that there is an increasing number of persons trying to enter the Civil Service, has the Minister caused any enquiry to be made or will he cause any enquiry to be made through the medium of the Civil Service Commission or any other body that might indicate to him what exactly is it in the existing situation that is forcing a larger number of people to apply for Civil Service posts?

Mr. Norton

The privilege of paying this £1.

Vote agreed to.

Estimates reported and agreed to.