asked the Taoiseach if he is aware that the selection boards set up by the Local Appointments Commission to select persons for appointments are not the final arbiters in such selections; and if he is aware that after such boards have placed candidates in their order of merit some other person or persons add additional marks, thereby changing the order of merit; and if he is aware that members of selection boards have frequently protested against this procedure and have asked for particulars of the additional marks allotted but have been refused these; and if he will take steps to ensure that for the future selection boards will not be interfered with in their selection of personnel for positions, and that no person or body will have the power to interfere with the order of merit in which the board have placed the candidates.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Appointments Commission.
The body expressly charged, by the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926, with the duty of selecting the persons to be appointed to certain situations in the employment of local authorities is the Local Appointments Commission itself. The statutory duty and responsibility of recommending to local authorities persons for appointment to offices to which the Act applies rest on the commissioners and cannot, under the existing law, be delegated to any other body or authority. Persons to be recommended for appointment must be selected by the commissioners by means of competitive examination except where, by reason of the nature of the duties of the office, the knowledge and experience required and the qualifications prescribed, the selection cannot be satisfactorily made by this method, and it is provided that, in such a case, the commissioners may make the selection by such means and in such manner as they think proper. In practice, the commissioners avail themselves of the assistance of boards where the method of competitive examination is not considered satisfactory. These boards, although popularly known as selection boards are, in fact, and are called by the commissioners, interview boards.
Dependent on the category to which the office belongs, the qualifications for appointment, that is, the qualifications as to age, health, character, education, training, experience, etc., are either "prescribed" by the commissioners, with the consent of the appropriate Minister or "declared" by the appropriate Minister after consultation with the commissioners; and, before recommending a person to a local authority for appointment, the commissioners must satisfy themselves "in such manner as they think proper" that such person possesses these qualifications. The interview board are asked to advise the commissioners as to the qualifications of the candidates in respect of such matters as education—excluding knowledge of Irish—training, experience and suitability and to place in order of merit in those respects the candidates whom they consider to be qualified.
In addition to the qualifications on which the interview board advise, the commissioners have regard to knowledge of Irish and, in recent years, to service rendered in the Defence Forces and the Auxiliary Defence Services. Preferences or extra credits—that is, extra marks—are awarded in respect of these matters in accordance with certain well-defined rules. These preferences or extra credits may, and sometimes do, result in the commissioners selecting, for recommendation to the local authority concerned a candidate other than the candidate whom the interview board have placed first in order of merit in respect of the particular matters which fall within the board's province. On the other hand, even where the award of these preferences or extra credits produces no change in the order of merit in which the interview board have placed the candidates, the candidate placed first may subsequently decide not to proceed with his candidature or may prefer another post of which he has the choice or may fail to satisfy the commissioners that he possesses the prescribed qualifications in respect of age, health or character. I am informed that, subject to the exceptions I have indicated, it is the practice of the commissioners to select for recommendation to the local authority the candidate whom the interview board have placed first in order of merit.
The regulations governing the making of an appointment indicate that the factors I have referred to are taken into account by the commissioners in the selection of a candidate. Copies of these regulations are supplied to each candidate and to the members of each interview board and are also available to the public. The board are not, however, given details of the extra credit allowed for knowledge of Irish or for defence service. It would be feasible to arrange matters so that the interview board could be informed of the extent of the preferences or extra credit to which each candidate would be entitled in respect of knowledge of Irish or defence service, although such an arrangement would not be free from practical difficulties. The reason why they are not so informed is that, if an interview board were aware of the effect which these preferences and extra credits would have on the final placings of individual candidates, the members of the board might unconsciously be influenced in assessing the relative merits of the candidates in other respects. The position which obtains at present is that the interview board can confine themselves to the relative merits of candidates in regard to their professional or technical qualifications and suitability without having to concern themselves with any other considerations.
There are only two cases on record in which written protests have been made regarding the operation of the preferences and extra credits. On various other occasions, however, members of interview boards have verbally protested both at the practice of giving such preferences and at the refusal of the commissioners to disclose the extent to which they have affected the final placings of candidates.
The Government and the Local Appointments Commissioners appreciate very fully the valuable public service which is rendered, gratuitously, by the men and women of high standing in the life of the community who act as members of interview boards. They know that this service always entails inconvenience, and often serious inconvenience. It would not be possible, however, under the statutes which govern these matters, legally to place on interview boards the final responsibility for selecting personnel for appointment to situations under local authorities or to alter the position by which that responsibility rests on one definite body of persons appointed by, and holding office during the pleasure of, the Government.
Can the Taoiseach state if it is correct that until a few years ago the recommendation of the interview board was always accepted?
The position at present, as I have stated to be, is that the recommendations of interview boards are accepted, except to the extent to which they are affected by the markings in respect of Irish and Defence Forces service. So far as I am aware, the markings in respect of Irish have always been the same and these markings were not given to interview boards; but, so far as markings for Defence Forces service are concerned, they are only of recent origin.
Is the Taoiseach aware that many prominent people feel that the existing method does not cast a satisfactory reflection on their competence; and, in view of that, would he and the Government consider overhauling the whole system so as to tighten it up and prevent such things in future?
I think I can assure the Deputy that I have given fairly deep consideration to the whole of this matter before this reply was put down. The Deputy, at my request, postponed the question for some weeks. The matter will be further and more fully considered. I would express my own personal view, which is not the conviction of any of my colleagues, whom I have not so far consulted on this topic, that the more information given to the public about matters of appointments the better it is for the Local Appointments Commissioners, of whose integrity I have not the slightest fear.
Is it not a fact that very many people are highly satisfied with the present method of selection and, in so far as persons in other years who have been placed first by the interview boards have not been appointed, it was very largely because of confidential information as to character which was obtained from the requisite authority?
The Deputy is quite right, and so is Deputy Sweetman. Like most other questions, the matters involved in this affair are matters on which there can be, legitimately and honestly, different views held. There is a very strong view held in the country that there should be more publicity in reference to these matters. Equally, there is a very strong case to be made that there should be a certain amount of reticence. It is a matter on which there can be valid differences of opinion. I am prepared to listen to both sides. The only thing I and the Government wish is to see that appointments to local authorities are made in such a manner as will secure the most efficient person and as will ensure public confidence in the appointment and in the body making the appointment.