I gave notice to-day that I would raise a question on the adjournment arising out of the reply to Question No. 1 on the Order Paper dealing with the order for dismissal of an employee of the Dublin County Council by the Department of Local Government, and the filling of the vacancy by the Appointments Commissioners. The reply of the Minister to that question was not satisfactory, but I felt, from the reply given by the Minister to my supplementary question, that he was not aware of all the facts. In that supplementary question I asked whether the Minister was aware that a temporary clerk in the county council office had been promoted to the permanent staff since the Minister took office, after an examination or educational test by the secretary of the county council and a favourable report as to the result. I understood the Minister to say he was not aware of that. I do not want to make any more of this case than is necessary, because I should be surprised at the Minister treating anybody harshly, especially a young fellow who has given over three years' satisfactory service in a temporary capacity. I can assure the Minister that the case I mentioned in the supplementary question was accurately described. If the Minister would be prepared to look into this matter I should be prepared to furnish him with proof of the subject matter of the supplementary question and if he would consider this case on similar lines to those on which be dealt with the other case I should not be anxious to proceed further with the matter now, as I feel sure that the Minister would deal equitably with this and any other case brought to his notice. Would the Minister at this stage like to have the full facts of this and similar cases brought to his notice? If he would I should not proceed further. I am quite satisfied that the Minister would have justice done, and I should be prepared to leave the matter in his hands.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment—Appointment of Local Government Official.
I shall consider any facts—particularly any new facts—that Deputy Belton brings to my notice. After the discussion we had on the question to-day I made inquiries and was told that what Deputy Belton had said was correct—that a man had been sanctioned under the circumstances mentioned. I should like to repeat, however, that the getting of people into the local services by the back door—that is what it amounts to—is a thing we have always been up against in the Department. That applies not only to the period during which I have been Minister but to the period of office of my predecessor and of every other Minister. We have always been trying to get the principle adopted by the local authorities that appointments to the local services should be by means of competitive examination. They adopt that for a time, but then some influential ratepayer or member of a board comes along and gets a son or daughter appointed for six months. The Deputy knows, as I know, that that is done.
They have to get your approval.
Certainly, they have to get approval. That goes on for six months and then there is another period of six months. I have a case before me where a man has been seven years in temporary employment, and it is only now it is brought to my notice. It is very hard to put a man or woman who has been in a position for seven years out of that position. In Deputy Belton's case, the man has been three years in the position, but one must make a stand somewhere.
Make a stand at the beginning.
If the principle is night, nobody ought to be allowed longer than six months by way of a temporary appointment. There is another official—a lady—who has been 18 months or two years in the temporary service of the Dublin County or the Dublin Board of Health. That lady will have to go out when her present period of sanction ends. There are similar cases hanging over in a number of county councils and boards of health.
I issued a general instruction to the Department that, without reference to any individual, we must stop this business of people getting in by the back door. In these cases, the individual concerned is brought in without advertisement. Nobody knows such an appointment is to be made except the members of the county council or board of health. The relative of some county councillor or member of the board of health is slipped in without the knowledge of the ratepayers, whose sons and daughters are equally entitled to try for the post. That has been the position not only in Dublin County or Cork County, but all over the country. Wherever they could get away with it, they have been doing that. Members say—not all, but some—"This is the only bit of value we get out of membership of a public board in the way of patronage." They try to get away with it in that way, and it is not fair to the ratepayers. I think that Deputy Belton would agree with me in that and would stand for the principle of competitive examination.
I would, but I should like to point out to the Minister that, in the British and Irish Civil Service, where it was decided that unestablished posts should be established and filled in future by competitive examination, a chance was given to those who were temporarily employed to remain in and a start was made by saying that any new entrants would have to come in by competitive examination. I agree that the Minister is right in establishing the principle of competitive examination, or whatever system is considered most equitable, but I do submit that anybody who has been in a position for a year, two years, or seven years, and who has given satisfaction, should not be thrown out on the road. I have no personal interest in the boy involved in this case, but I do not consider it is fair to dispense with him now. If he were in my personal employment, I should not throw him out, and I am sure the Minister would not throw him out if he were in his employment.
In that event, we should be dealing with our own money and we could do what we liked with it.
The principle is there all the same. If you had a person in your employment who was doing your work well you would not think of dismissing him. This boy is doing his work well although he did not enter by competitive examination. If the Minister decides that henceforth the principle of competitive examination must be observed in these appointments I shall agree with him. It is the fairest way. Every councillor who has no axe to grind agrees with that, because the other system is the greatest nuisance. Every member of public boards knows all about it. The Minister know it, because he was a member of public boards. He knows that tails are pulled by this, that and the other person. It is a nuisance, let it be good, bad or indifferent. That is the way appointments were filled. This boy was in this position for three years after leaving school, and it is not fair to him, after spending three years there, and from the business side giving satisfactory service, to have to leave his position now.
I appeal to the Minister to consider that aspect of it, not only in his case, but in the case of anyone who has given service and who has been in a position for some time, and to give them a chance of continuing. He could apply the principle of competitive examinations for new entrants. I had nearly 20 years' experience of the British Civil Service, and I saw many classes in it that were temporary abolished. Those who were in these classes were made permanent, but new entrants were recruited by means of competitive examination. In no case was anyone dismissed. They were always allowed to remain on in their positions. I am glad the leader of the Labour Party is present. I am sure he will support that principle. I could say a great deal more on this matter as I got information about certain people boasting here, there and elsewhere, but I have sufficient confidence in the Minister to see fair play done. Though I heard that political influence was brought to bear on him I do not believe it. I do not believe the Minister would fall for that. That is why I am not going to use information that I cannot prove. It was given to me as gospel, but I do not accept things as gospel unless I am convinced. I do not accept the suggestion that the Minister would be influenced in any way in a matter like that. I appeal to him to consider the cases of people already in the service, and to let the new principle, which is a good one, be adopted from now on for new entrants. I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider this case.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th February.